National Integrity System Assessment Slovenia (Executive Summary)

M

Barents Sea

Norwegian Sea

Atlantic Ocean

Baltic Sea

North Sea

Bay of Biscay

NATIONAL INTEGRITY SYSTEM ASSESSMENT SLOVENIA

B l a c k

S e a

Mediterranean Sea

www.integriteta.si 420 Miles

Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of October 2011. Nevertheless, Društvo Integriteta/Transparency International Slovenia cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of its use for other purposes or in other contexts.

Published and edited by: Društvo Integriteta/Transparency International Slovenia Editor: Simona Habič Researchers: ・ dr. Bojan Dobovšek ・ Simona Habič ・ Boštjan Slak ・ mag. Maja Dimc ・ dr. Benjamin Flander ・ Goran Forbici ・ dr. Damjan Lajh ・ mag. Miha Šepec ・ Kaja Miklavčič Review and quality control: ・ dr. Suzanne Mulcahy ・ doc. dr. Andraž Teršek Transparency International Slovenia: ・Research and Project Coordinator: Simona Habič ・Project Assistant: Vid Doria ・Research Assistant: Kaja Miklavčič Transparency International Secretariat: ・Project Coordinator Paul Zoubkov ・Project Assistants: Helen Turek & Mariya Gorbanova

Volunteers: Alja Stanko, Edita Beganovič, Gorazd Safran, Jerneja Jerman, Karin Šmitek, Kristjan Sivec, Mateja Femec, Mitja Lotrič, Monika Gabrič, Petra Usenik, Petra Por, Sara Verderber, Špela Pohar, Teja Videc, Urška Alič, Urška Knez, Nastja Horvat, Vesna GraËner, Rok Rus.

With financial support from the Prevention of and Fight against Crime Programme of the European Union European Commission - Directorate-General Home Affairs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National Integrity System assessment approach provides a framework to analyse the robustness and effectiveness of a country’s institutions involved in the prevention and fight against corruption. The concept has been developed and promoted by Transparency International (TI) as part of its holistic approach to countering corruption. A well-functioning national integrity system provides effective safeguards against corruption as part of the larger struggle against abuse of power, malfeasance, and misappropriation.

This assessment provides an analysis of the legislative framework and its implementation in the 13 key institutions (pillars) that are responsible for preventing corruption in Slovenia. The research provides an assessment of independence, transparency, accountability and integrity mechanisms in the social, political, economic and cultural context. The assessment is not intended to provide an in-depth analysis but, to give a broad perspective, highlight both strengths and weaknesses and examine how they are interrelated. Any deficiencies in the functioning of one of the pillars can jeopardise the stability of the whole system, so an understanding of the interactions and interrelations can help establish key priority actions.

The research adopts the methodology developed by Transparency International and includes data from the last two years (at least). The analysis was conducted by reviewing available sources, conducting extensive interviews, undertaking field inspections to check access to information and verifying the findings and assessments provided by the researchers, TI-Slovenia (DruĹĄtvo Integriteta), the consultative group, TI-Secretariat and the reviewer. All findings and assessments were presented at a technical consultation where key recommendations were agreed upon. They will be aimed at the government, civil society and other institutions that fight corruption. The aim of the research is to identify key deficiencies in the Slovenian integrity system and thereby provide effective solutions.

Findings The NIS research showed that recent political events around the elections affected the country's integrity system, especially the prosecution, police and judicial administrations. The political situation during and after the elections suggests a poor political culture and represents a threat to the national integrity system. The main threats to the stability lie in several points of the recent coalition agreement, notably in the reduction of the number of ministries and moving the state prosecution to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This action provoked a strong reaction from the public and experts who argued that these moves were alarming and could contradict the Constitution and represent a threat to the independent functioning of the institutions.

A moderately stable integrity system Major deficiencies in certain areas can hamper the overall effectiveness of the system. One of the main findings is that there is a significant gap between the legal framework and actual functioning of the institutions in the fight against corruption.

These differences suggest there is a lack of appropriate control over the implementation of legislation. As a result, the system encounters many cases of inappropriate, unethical and unacceptable behaviour of key decision-makers and members of political parties. The causes can be found in low personal integrity, indifferent

attitudes towards public interest and the many opportunities to abuse the system. When it comes to areas where the legislation might be weak or inadequate, decision-makers and public officials must rely on their personal integrity in order to protect the public interest and are also expected to call attention to any irregularities. Therefore, the gap also reveals some concerns about the practices of reporting corruption, as the protection of whistleblowers is unsystematic, despite being guaranteed under the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act.

A number of weak points in the system have been identified, particularly concerning the independence of the public sector and the media, transparency of public procurement, the role of the police and prosecution authorities in countering corruption, transparent and accountable governance of political parties and the engagement of civil society. \Below, some of the key findings of the examination of the Slovenian integrity system are discussed.

Findings and recommendations by pillar Legislature Strengths: •

There is a stable constitutional framework for independence, efficiency and accountability.

•

There is an appropriate framework of control over the executive branch.

•

Normative and institutional reforms have taken place for the prevention of corruption and the establishment of a high-quality national integrity system.

Weaknesses: •

It has insufficient financial autonomy.

•

The establishment of a comprehensive mechanism to ensure integrity is taking too long.

•

The phenomenon of the so called ‘partitocracy’.

•

There is a too much influence of lobbyists on the content of legislation, leading to so-called ‘privatisation of legislation’.

•

The legislature pays little regard to expert or public opinions and disrespects and even neglects some of the Constitutional Court’s decisions.

•

The legislature’s immunity from criminal law is too broad

•

There is insufficient communication between the deputies of the National Assembly and the Ombudsman.

•

Insufficient performance by the legislator’s supervisory bodies, which are being abused achieve political ends.

•

There is high public distrust, due to the low level of integrity among some of the deputies.

Recommendations: •

Prevent an escalation of austerity measures.

•

Tighten control regarding the lobbying of deputies.

•

Include a so-called ‘legislative trail’ for the mandatory components of bills.

•

Abolish the non-professional criminal immunity of deputies.

•

Reduce the influence of authorities and prominent party members in the parliamentary decision making process.

•

De-politicize the supervisory function.

•

Resolve the question on the role of the national council, which will not weaken the mechanism of “checks and balances” within the system.

•

Enhance transparency of the legislative process and provide public access to legislation.

•

Introduce a code of conduct.

•

Continue and intensify the process of legal reforms.

•

Oblige deputies to participate in trainings on ethics and integrity.

Executive Strengths: •

There are sufficient financial, human, and technical resources and funds.

•

Government activities of public interest are available online.

•

Efficient operation control has been established on a normative level.

Weaknesses: •

There is inefficient oversight by the public, particularly of the assets of the members of government.

•

Some members of the government exhibit weak integrity, which heightens a number of suspicions about the misuse of office and corruption.

•

Sanctions are not applied in practice for the misuse of office.

•

There is selective consideration of the Court of Audit appeals to the prime minister for dismissal of ministers.

Recommendations: •

Ensure efficient control over the assets of members of government through the use of supervising authorities.

•

Increase integrity amongst members of government under oath.

•

Improve the general political culture.

•

Systematically investigate reasons for the ineffective enforcement.

Judiciary Strengths: •

There is relative financial stability.

•

There has been a reduction of court backlogs.

•

There are satisfactory levels of integrity of the judges and the judicial branch.

•

There is comparatively efficient control over the performance of the executive and the legislative branches.

Weaknesses: •

Judicial salaries are inconsistent with the directives of the Constitutional Court.

•

There are indirect influences and media pressure on the process of judicial decision-making.

•

In isolated cases there are threats to the security of the judges and expressions of intolerance of the role of the judiciary.

•

There is a lack of oversight of the work of judges.

•

There is a low level of public trust (except in the Constitutional Court).

•

There have been delays in reforms for a more efficient adjudication of criminal matters related to corruption.

Recommendations: •

Provide solutions for problems related to spatial and human resources.

•

Align judicial salaries according to the directives of the Constitutional Court.

•

Preserve the permanent judicial mandate.

•

Provide direct public access to concrete information about disciplinary proceedings against judges.

•

Ensure that public information requests are responded to.

•

Increase control over the work of the judges without encroaching upon their independence.

•

Ensure the availability of information related to any procedures imposed by the code of judicial ethics.

•

Improve the public image of the judiciary.

•

Intensify anti-corruption efforts and reforms.

Public sector Strengths: •

There are sufficient resources and funds, but problematic distribution.

•

On the normative level, independence and integrity of public sector employees are generally assured.

•

There is better access to information and increased online activity.

Weaknesses: •

There is poor execution of legislation.

•

The intervention of political parties, different informal networks and lobbies jeopardises independence.

•

There are instances of ‘state capture’.

•

Political interest influences regulations on public procurement and recruitment.

•

There is low accountability and integrity of public officials, with few disciplinary proceedings in practice.

•

It is complicated to obtain public information about the assets of public officials. Only the larger budget users have internal audits commissioned.

•

Public procurement does not have efficient oversight; the commissions that prepare tenders and select winners are the same, providing limited checks on corruption.

•

The public has no access to the black-listed companies that are forbidden from cooperating with the government.

Recommendations: •

Ensure greater independence of the public sector from political pressures.

•

Hold public officials accountable for their actions.

•

Improve the performance of internal and external supervisory institutions.

•

Provide access to the black list of companies and ensure that any measures taken and cooperation with these companies by the public sector is made transparent.

•

Enhance transparency regarding public spending and provide comprehensive information to the public.

•

Ensure public access to information.

•

Establish comprehensive whistleblower protection and provide channels for reporting incidents.

Law enforcement agencies Strengths: •

There is an established legislative framework for integrity and accountability.

•

Transparency of the work of the police.

•

The National Bureau of Investigation shows progress in pursuing economic crimes.

Weaknesses: •

There are inefficiencies in pursuing corruption with poor cooperation between law enforcement agencies and other institutions.

•

There are insufficient funds and resources for police work.

•

Political influence over recruitment practices influences the work of the prosecution and the police, undermining independence.

•

The Prosecutor’s Office can be more transparent in respect to its communication with the public.

•

Inappropriate legal frameworks enable manipulation of legal matters on the part of the Prosecutor's Office.

Recommendations: •

Strengthen cooperation between the police and the public prosecutor, and ensure efficiency in pursuing corruption-related offences.

•

Adopt a code of conduct for state prosecutors.

•

Improve the implementation of legislation pertaining to law enforcement agencies in practice.

•

Provide sufficient resources.

•

Reduce the influence of in the recruitment process.

•

Increase the independence of authorities; improve transparency and integrity mechanisms.

•

Ensure that the work of the prosecutor’s office is transparent.

•

Ensure the implementation of the access to information law.

•

Avoid manipulation of legal matters in proceedings carried out by the prosecutor’s office and police.

•

Include civil representatives and other forms of informal supervision into the control proceedings for the work of law enforcement agencies.

Electoral management body Strengths: •

It ensures the adequate legality of elections.

•

It has a high level of work transparency.

•

There have been no complaints over the election results.

•

There has been no obvious serious pressure on the work of the voting authorities.

Weaknesses: •

There are limited financial and human resources.

•

There is no education or training for members of the various voting commissions.

•

There was inefficient spending of funds when organising elections and referendums, due to a large number of polling stations.

•

Members of the Electoral management body, coming from political parties can jeopardise independence; risk of replacing members of the electoral management body for political reasons.

Recommendations: •

Ensure stable financial and human resources.

•

Provide anti-corruption education and training for the members of different voting commissions.

•

Reduce costs during elections and referenda by reducing the number of polling stations.

•

Reduce the influence of politics in the work of the institution.

Ombudsman Strengths: •

There are adequate legal frameworks for independence, accountability and transparency.

•

The integrity of the ombudsman is perceived to be comparatively high.

•

There are no obvious political pressures.

•

There has been proactive education of the public and the power holders about the importance of ensuring high standards of ethics.

•

There is a comparatively high level of public trust.

Weaknesses: •

The prerequisites for the election of the ombudsman are vague.

•

The ombudsman’s public reputation decreases due to his passivity to human rights violations of

minorities or specific social groups.

•

There are inconsistencies in the legislation dealing with the principle of confidentiality procedures.

•

Insufficient public commitment of the present ombudswoman to certain burning issues on disrespect of human rights.

•

There are slow responses to the conclusions, critiques and recommendations of the ombudsman in many cases.

Recommendations: •

Introduce an evaluation of the efficiency of work carried out.

•

Ensure independence and non-partisanship by eliminating the possibility of re-election.

•

Broaden activities with regard to Roma discrimination, the rights of the Izbrisani (“the erased persons”), and the rights of migrant workers and homosexuals.

•

Ensure a rapid follow-up to the ombudsman’s interventions by competent national authorities.

•

Review the ombudsman’s initiative to create a national human rights institution.

•

Review the possibility to introduce a code of conduct.

Court of Audit Strengths: •

In addition to having a good legal basis and independence, it is highly transparent, independent and accountable.

•

Good reputation and high-quality personnel.

Weaknesses: •

There is insufficient personnel, due to a lack of funds.

•

There is questionable independence because of the pressures of the legislative branch and political influence.

•

There is limited jurisdiction in some key domains.

•

There is insufficient education of the employees on integrity.

Recommendations: •

Provide sufficient funds for recruiting new auditors to perform preventive audits

•

Ensure that legislation and jurisdiction corresponds to international recommendations for the prevention of corruption, including financial control over political parties and certain uses of public money.

•

Perform systematic revisions of auditing to ensure an efficient and comprehensive improvement of financial management in the public sector.

•

Ensure the systemic education of employees on integrity.

Commission for the Prevention of Corruption

Strengths: •

The selection of the president and deputies is designed in a way to reduce political influence.

•

The Commission strives for transparency and facilitates access to public information by introducing the application Supervisor.

•

There is high public trust in the Commission.

•

There is good cooperation with other institutions.

Weaknesses: •

There are insufficient funds and personnel.

•

The system for protecting people who report corruption does not work.

•

There is no specially created supervisory body for regular oversight of the Commission's work.

Recommendations:

•

Provide sufficient resources to guarantee the effective work of the commission.

•

Provide comprehensive protection for whistleblowers.

Political parties Strengths: •

There is adequate legal basis for the creation, management and work of political parties.

Weaknesses: •

The funding of political parties and nature of the expenses are not transparent.

•

The state has not provided adequate legislation or created a system for efficient supervision and does not meet the recommendations of the GRECO.

•

The method of distribution of funds among the parties favours the parliamentary parties in the political race.

•

The independence of the deputies is often jeopardised, as party leaderships control and direct their votes in the National Assembly.

•

The relationships between parties and different interest groups are often ‘clientelistic’.

•

Electoral participation is low and citizens have no trust in political parties.

•

Political parties do not inform the public about their financial management of their own initiative.

Recommendations: •

Implement GRECO recommendations; increase control over the financial management of the parties (through transparency of funding sources and the nature of expenses, the possibility of loans, disclosure of financial management of the party's internal organisational units, limitation of the party’s funding by entities related to the party, access to complete annual reports of the parties, etc.).

•

Enforce legislation which lays out financial penalties for such infringements through a new institution or by giving appropriate power to the Court of Audit.

•

Ensure the independence of the elected deputies in parliament.

•

Ensure the integrity of party representatives and close the gap between public promises concerning ethical principles and actions.

Media Strengths: •

The media is essential for preventing and revealing corruption, as well as other discrepancies in the use of public resources and other state activities.

•

Access to information and media pluralism is guaranteed and the Constitution also ensures the right to correction and reply.

Weaknesses: •

The freedom of the media is threatened by political pressure, influences and ownership; there are also no sanctions for violations or restrictions on the independent functioning of the media.

•

The quantity of advertising is increasing and with it the pressure of companies and lobbyists.

•

Journalists are not adequately qualified for investigative journalism.

•

From an economic point of view, the environment is not inclined to quality and there is little support for increasing standards.

•

The ownership of the media is not transparent.

•

Journalists face economic and political threats and pressures while performing their work.

Recommendations: •

Establish a suitable legislative framework that will protect the plurality, diversity and variety of media contents.

•

Terminate all state ownership of media.

•

Train and employ investigative journalists; cooperation between different actors and state funding should be enhanced for that purpose.

•

Supervise licensing and advertising regulations in order to ensure quality.

•

Ensure professionalization of journalism through media groups and appropriate legislation.

•

Protect journalists against threats and pressures.

•

Ensure timely and comprehensive access to public information.

Civil society Strengths: •

The quantity of volunteer work is increasing.

•

The registration procedure for CSOs is simple.

•

The certified system of good management is accessible.

•

Trade unions are powerful and sometimes have good influence.

•

Donations to CSOs are tax-exempt.

Weaknesses: •

The legislative framework for CSOs is out-of-date and deficient, tax legislation is also poorly regulated.

•

CSOs have an unstable financial position as they are dependent on project work and find it very difficult to fundraise for basic operations. CSOs become dependent on a small number of donors, which can put pressure on their independence and professionalism.

•

CSOs are not effectively influencing the work of government and parliament.

•

Transparency and prevention of corruption in CSOs own work tends to be ignored and they are not very active in the fight against corruption.

Recommendations: •

Update tax regulations and the legislative framework in order to ensure the efficient operation of civil society organizations (CSOs).

•

Ensure an equal partnership between the government and civil society in socio-political decisionmaking.

•

Provide opportunities for CSOs to influence policy-making e.g. through the regular and timely public announcements of document drafts, thus allowing comments and suggestions.

•

Establish a mechanism so that the basic operation of important CSOs are financed through independent sources.

•

Scatter funding in order to increase independence and ensure a suitable, stable structure for operation.

•

Increase influence on anti-corruption policies.

•

Separate religious institutions from the state; provide financial resources for their activities.

Private sector Strengths: •

The progress in the prosecution of economic and financial crime and corruption is significant.

•

More and more companies are aware of the fact that high integrity and transparency in their operations makes them more competitive.

•

The application Supervisor is well positioned to control the use of public funds.

Weaknesses: •

Undue influence over politics can result in ‘state capture’.

•

The high equity holding of the state in some larger companies causes significant public sector influence over operations.

•

The misuse of acquaintances with businesspeople, public officials and government officials when doing business (favours, cronyism, nepotism) harms fair competition.

•

The ‘revolving doors’ phenomenon causes irresponsible company management and misuse.

•

Economic crime is on the rise and prosecutions are not effective.

•

State supervision of further payments of previously acquired services is not suitable and insufficient.

•

Compulsory settlements and bankruptcy have proved to be ineffective in the reconstruction of companies in practice.

•

The establishment of integrity mechanisms is not a main priority for companies.

•

The private sector has poor connections with civil society when dealing with corruption prevention.

Recommendations: •

Provide a legislative framework allowing the prosecution of economic crimes; educate investigators, enable connections between investigators of taxation, finances and repressive institutions; guarantee the independence of courts and judiciary.

•

Ensure financing, more efficient state bureaucracy, establish a more flexible labour market, relieve taxation and ensure control over the complete chain of service payments in practice.

•

Regulate the state’s equity holdings in larger companies.

•

Regulate the field of public procurement and sanctions abuses accordingly.

•

Enhance cooperation of the private sector and civil society with regard to corruption prevention.

•

Regulate reversal of the burden of proof.