Public ethics and accountability

Ethics and integrity in public administration is a precondition for a democratic, transparent, and effective government, and greater responsiveness to citizens. In Albania, there is a lack of data as regards the implementation of codes of conduct at local level, and most norms affecting codes of conduct are regulated through codes of ethics, creating confusion between the two. On the other hand, many public institutions, like the Supreme State Audit Institution (ALSAI) and local governments, have adopted their own codes of conduct and codes of ethics. With regard to the latter, there is confusion about the hierarchy of the legislation regulating ethics and the codes of ethics themselves that often duplicate legal instruments and, therefore, are redundant or fail to address specific local concerns. Besides, the lack of data on the implementation of codes of ethics reflects the reality that their implementation has been limited in Albania.

The adoption of the new Law on Public Service in 2018 has changed the approaches to the establishment of the codes of ethics and conduct in state and local self-government bodies, as well as the formation of ethics commissions and promotion of integrity standards.

CPC is designed to be the body that regulates rules of ethics, and is responsible for interpreting the basic principles of conduct, developing a standard code of conduct for public servants, officials, and setting guidelines for sectoral codes of conduct. Obviously, its CPC’s establishment in November 2019 marked a new era and advanced expectations for ethical governance and accountability. However, the establishment and full scale operation of CPC proceeds slowly.

The development of the public ethics system in Bosnia and Herzegovina is primarily related to public administration reform projects and the support of various international donors to the development of administration in BiH. Taking into account the very complex constitutional and administrative structure, a number of laws and bylaws are in force in Bosnia and Herzegovina that regulate the obligations of competent (local, cantonal, entity, state) bodies to adopt codes of ethics and codes of conduct for elected officials and civil servants. This especially relates to local authorities, which follow the entity or cantonal governments' regulations, which are fragmented and uneven. From 2018, the Agency for Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against Corruption of Bosnia and Herzegovina includes ethical behaviour in building public bodies' broader concept of building integrity. The lack of a code of ethics or ignorance of its content from the side of elected officials or civil servants is one of the systemic risk indicators that can lead to the development of corrupt behaviour, ethical and professionally unacceptable procedures and other irregularities in the work of public administration bodies. Although codes of ethics and codes of conduct in public institutions have been adopted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, more attention needs to be given to their role and implementation.

Currently, Kosovo* does not have one general code of ethics and conduct that would regulate the behaviour of public officials. Nevertheless, there is a legal framework composed of the Law on Civil Service and the Regulation on Civil Servant Code of Conduct whose purpose is to regulate those behaviours. Given the importance of these codes, each institution and public body in Kosovo* has issued its code of ethics and conduct. Adherence to these codes is very important for citizens to receive public services in the best possible way, and to increase the transparency and accountability of the public administration in Kosovo*. In addition, these codes inherently increase the professionalism of the public administration and build citizens’ trust in the work of the public administration. Furthermore, the legal framework in Kosovo* provides that the Anti-Corruption Agency participates and offers advice on drafting codes of ethics in the public and private sectors.

A civil servant in the Republic of Moldova must follow the Code of Conduct approved by the government back in 2008. The Code also compels state officials to rationally use public means, state property, and work time, to strictly observe laws, be impartial, professional, and loyal. This Code has the potential to tackle corruption and increase transparency and accountability in the public sector if fully embraced by civil servants and with compliance mechanisms in place.

The Code is not applicable to mayors and other persons of public dignity. It is applicable only to the civil servants from municipal administration, but not to the local elected representatives. In their case, the Law on the Status of Persons of Public Dignity and the Law on the Status of Local Elected Representatives apply. However, these laws have no specific provisions on the conduct of local elected representatives.

The importance of codes of ethics and conduct for public officials and elected representatives is widely highlighted in the national legislative framework and strongly supported in the work of civil society. For instance, creating a trustworthy public service is one of the objectives of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy 2014-2017. Article 37 of the Law No. 1700-VII “On Prevention of Corruption” stipulates that local public authorities should elaborate and implement codes of ethical conduct in different fields of public administration. Thus, the introduction of the code of ethical conduct for public officials is becoming an increasingly common practice.

Norms of conduct of public officials are regulated by Law No. 9131 “On the Rules of Ethics in the Public Administration”. As provided in Article 1 of this law, “the purpose of this law is to set rules of conduct of employees of the public administration, according to the required standards, to help them achieve these standards and to make the public aware of the conduct that an employee of the public administration should have”.

In addition, Law No. 152/2013 “On the Civil Servant” serves as a basis for adopting more specific and detailed regulations on ethics by different parts of the public administration. Public institutions are obliged to establish a human resources department responsible for the management and career development of the public officials of the institution. Disciplinary measures and sanctions are stipulated for application in the event of noncompliance with the law.

The existing codes of ethics or codes of conduct and related provisions in the internal regulations of local authorities complement the above-stated legal provisions.  

The system of ethics in Armenia is decentralised.

CPC acts as an ethics oversight body for persons holding public office, but not for MPs, judges, prosecutors, investigators, who are supposed to establish their own ethics commissions. It does not regulate ethical issues related to public servants, except for incompatibility requirements or other restrictions.

The Constitution of Armenia sets forth a requirement to support regulation of the parliamentary ethics. More specifically,  Article 107 of the Constitution states that ad hoc committees may be established upon decision of the National Assembly for the discussion of issues relating to parliamentarian ethics, and for the submission of opinions to the National Assembly.

According to the legislation of Armenia, the institutions regulating the code of ethics of public servants in Armenia are:

• The ad hoc committee of the National Assembly for discussion of issues related to parliamentary ethics;
• The Corruption Prevention Commission;
• The Constitutional Court;
• The Ethics and Disciplinary Commission of the General Assembly of Judges;
• The Ethics Commission adjunct to the Prosecutor General;
• Ethics Commissions established for types of services – such as the civil service, tax service, customs service, diplomatic service, etc.;
• The position of integrity officer envisaged in the personnel subdivisions of the state and local self-government bodies.

With regard to other community services and community officials, the process of formation of ethics commissions has not yet been regulated by law. The mechanisms for establishing ethics commissions and defining the rules of ethics for the members of the community councils have not also been developed and specified yet.

Ethics commissions of public servants shall follow up applications on the incompatibility requirements and other restrictions, violations of the code of conduct and situational conflict of interest cases and develop proposals to the respective institutions or officials to prevent or to eliminate conflict of interest situation in question.

The integrity officer, as prescribed by the Article 46 of the Law on Public Service, provides professional advice to public servants on incompatibility requirements, other restrictions, rules of conduct, as well as submits a proposal on taking steps to resolve the conflict of interest situation.

The legal framework for the adoption of codes of ethics and codes of conduct in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be observed in relation to the level of government at which the regulation is adopted and whether it is intended for civil servants or elected officials.

The provisions of all applicable laws on civil service in BiH state-level institutions,   the Federation of BiH,  Republika Srpska,  Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina  and cantons prescribe the obligation of the competent Civil Service Agencies to develop a code of conduct for civil servants adopted by the competent governments.

For elected officials at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska, the Federation of BiH and the cantons, the drafting of codes of ethics or codes of conduct is prescribed by the Rules of Procedure of the competent legislative bodies, assemblies, or parliaments.

It should be noted that all executive and legislative power levels have adopted codes of ethics or codes of conduct for civil servants or elected officials. In addition, ethics commissions or committees have been set up within the legislature to report the unethical conduct of elected officials according to the rules of procedure.

When it comes to the legal framework for local authorities, Article 39, paragraph 2, item 27 of the Law on Local Self-Government of the Republika Srpska  stipulates that the Assembly of the local self-government (municipality or city) is responsible for adopting codes of ethics for elected officials.

In Republika Srpska, a special Law on Civil Servants and State Employees in Local Self-Government Units  has been adopted. Article 33 of this Law stipulates that an official is obliged to act in accordance with the law and the Code of Conduct issued by the Minister of Administration and Local Self-Government of Republika Srpska.

The Law on Principles of Local Self-Government  has been in force in the Federation of BiH since 2006, but it does not explicitly prescribe the obligation to adopt a code of ethics or a code of conduct for elected officials. This is a framework law defining the principles under which cantonal levels of government should harmonize existing cantonal laws on local self-government enacted before 2006 or enact new ones to be harmonised with the federal law. The current laws on local self-government of the Federation of BiH do not prescribe the obligation to adopt a code of ethics or code of conduct. The practice is varied, given that a large number of local governments follow standards in this area and have adopted codes of ethics or codes of conduct for elected officials, which have been adopted based on strategic documents, statutes and other bylaws of local self-government units.

The provisions of Article 17, paragraph 7, of the Law on Civil Service in the Federation of BiH, which prescribes the adoption of the Code of Ethics, and cantonal laws on civil service apply to civil servants in the bodies of local self-government units. Out of a total of 10 cantons in BiH, seven cantons have adopted civil service laws.   Some cantonal laws prescribe the adoption of cantonal codes of ethics, and some require the application of the Code of Ethics for civil servants in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Chapter 7 of the Law on Civil Service of Kosovo* provides for the Principles and Conditions of Professional Conduct of Civil Servants. However, considering the importance of professional conduct and ethics in the public administration, Kosovo* has issued the Regulation on Civil Servant Code of Conduct. This regulation aims to determine the rules of conduct of all civil servants in Kosovo* and to raise public awareness of the conduct that civil servants should have while exercising their duties. This regulation sets out the fundamental principles that should be respected by civil servants when providing public services. Namely, they must adhere to the principles of legality, non-discrimination, obligation to respond to requests, effectiveness and efficiency, responsibility, impartiality and professional independence, transparency, avoiding conflict of interest, and equal opportunities for communities and genders. Violations of the rules and principles set out in this Regulation would lead to disciplinary measures against the public official in accordance with the legislation in force.

Discussions about the need for a code of conduct for public servants in the Republic of Moldova took place in 2004. It took four years to develop, consult, and approve a Law on the Code of Conduct (Law No. 25 of 22 February 2008). The goal of the Code is to establish norms of conduct for the civil service and inform citizens about the conduct civil servants should have in order to:

• Improve the quality of civil service;
• Ensure a better administration in promoting public interest;
• Contribute to the prevention and elimination of bureaucracy and corruption in public administration; and
• Create an environment that would enhance citizens’ trust in public authority.

Additionally, Article 23 of the Law on Integrity No. 82 of 25 May 2017 stipulates as a requirement the respect for the norms of ethics and deontology and describes the responsibilities of the head of the public entity, among which are: establishing and implementing norms of ethics and deontology; ensuring that public agents receive relevant training and serve as a good example for other public agents with regard to the implementation of these norms; using accountability mechanisms, particularly in cases when violations contain elements of certain contraventions or crimes, in order to notify the responsible anti-corruption authority.

The Law No. 1700-VII “On Prevention of Corruption” (Section VI, Articles 37-44) provides rules for the ethical conduct of public servants and state officials. These rules include the respect of the rule of law and ethical norms, priority of the public interests, political neutrality for public servants, impartiality, competence and effectiveness, and abstaining from implementing unlawful decisions. The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) monitors and controls its implementation and provides clarification and guidance on the rules of ethical conduct and prevention of conflict of interests (Article 11).

Ethical principles are defined in the Laws "On Local Self-Government", "On the Status of Local Councillors", and "On Service in Local Government Bodies". On August 5, 2016, the National Agency of Ukraine for Civil Service issued an order "On approval of the General rules of ethical conduct of civil servants and local government officials."

Civil servants in their activities are guided by civil service’s principles of ethics, based on the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, legislation on civil service and prevention of corruption, namely:

1. service to the state and society;
2. decent behaviour;
3. integrity;
4. loyalty;
5. political neutrality;
6. transparency and accountability;
7. conscience.

Despite the lack of specific guidelines regarding codes of conduct, the ethics and conduct of public officials are regulated in different articles of the normative framework aiming to increase transparency, impartiality and non-discrimination in the actions and conduct of Albanian civil servants. The following instruments contain provisions on the conduct of public officials:

• Law No. 7961, 1 July 1995, “Labour Code of the Republic of Albania”, as amended;
• Law No. 9049, 10 April 2003, “On the Declaration and Audit of Assets, Financial Obligations of Elected Persons and Certain Public Officials”, as amended;
• Law No. 9367, 7 April 2005, “On the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest in the Exercise of Public Functions”, as amended;
• Law No. 9643, 20 November 2006, “On Public Procurement”, as amended;
• Law No. 9887, 10 March 2008, “On the Protection of Personal Data”, as amended;
• Law No. 90/2012, 27 September 2012, “On the Organisation and Functioning of Government Administration”;
• Law No. 152/2013, 30 May 2013, “On the Civil Servant”;
• Law No. 119/2014, 18 September 2014, “On the Right to Information”;
• Law No. 44/2015, 30 April 2015, on “The Code of Administrative Procedures of the Republic of Albania”
• Cross-cutting Public Administration Reform Strategy 2015-2020;
• Further information here.

Having a code of conduct is important not only to highlight, transmit and protect the internal values of the institution, but also to communicate these values to external stakeholders. In this regard, local authorities should adopt a code of conduct to foster accountability and ethical behaviour, and to function as a central guide for handling ethical dilemmas.

Law on Public Service states that typical rules of conduct for public servants shall be established by CPC based on the principles of conduct established by the Law on Public Service. Though the Commission started functioning since 2019, the development of the typical rules of conduct is still in process. The rules of conduct of a public servant shall be defined on the basis of the typical rules of conduct established by the Corruption Prevention Commission.

The main issue is that neither the Law on Public Service, nor the Law on Local Self-Government regulates the procedure of creation of codes of conduct for the community councils. The Corruption Prevention Commission shall establish the typical rules of conduct for public servants

The formation of the Ethics and Disciplinary Commission of Judges is regulated by the Judicial Code, defining conditions for the formation of the Ethics and Disciplinary Commission by the General Assembly of Judges․ The Ethics and Disciplinary Commission of Judges consists of eight members։ six judges and two non-judges. The Ethics and Disciplinary Commission initiates disciplinary proceedings against a judge and performs other functions prescribed by the Judicial Code.

As for prosecutors, the Law on Prosecution Service defines that the Ethics Commission consists of seven members, including one Deputy Attorney General, three legal scholars, three prosecutors. The Ethics Commission is chaired by the Deputy Prosecutor General. The disciplinary sanction established by the Law on the Prosecution Service shall be imposed by the Prosecutor General on the basis of the relevant positive conclusion of the Ethics Commission.

The main requirements for the establishment, activities and procedure of the ad hoc committee on parliamentary ethics are defined in the Constitutional Law on Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly. Nevertheless, as evidenced by the established practice of the National Assembly, the formation of the ad hoc committee on parliamentary ethics never took place in the previous sessions of the National Assembly.

It is worth mentioning that starting from 2019 the UN Development Programme (UNDP) Modern Parliament for a Modern Armenia project provides assistance to the National Assembly to improve the parliamentary integrity system, which includes development of the Code of Ethics for the members of the National Assembly.

The disciplinary commissions, established for investigators, as well as other law enforcement agencies, national security, police, penitentiary and compulsory services, do not regulate the observance of the rules of conduct. For this reason, the process of forming ethics commissions is not legally completed.

The Anti-Corruption Strategy 2015-2019 of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the accompanying Action Plan  recognize the strengthening of ethics and integrity in public administration as one of the key preventive mechanisms in the fight against corruption.

Back in 2015, Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the financial support of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, developed the Manual: Introduction of Integrity Plans at the Local Level   to design effective methods for creating ethical and professional quality of work in public institutions.

Through their strategic plans for the fight against corruption, all levels of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina have recognised the importance of improving ethical behaviour and strengthening integrity. For example, the Tuzla Canton Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2021-2024 envisages the introduction of programme plans to strengthen ethics and integrity in primary, secondary, and higher education. 

In 2018, the Agency for Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against Corruption of Bosnia and Herzegovina developed the Manual: Rules for Development of Integrity Plans in BiH Institutions with the aim of providing guidance to institutions at all levels of government on how to approach the development of internal plans to prevent corruption, unethical behaviour and strengthen integrity of public institutions.

Besides the Law on Civil Service and the Regulation on Civil Servant Code of Conduct, public bodies and institutions in Kosovo* have issued their own codes or regulations of conduct and ethics. For instance, the Assembly of Kosovo* has issued the Code of Conduct of the Members of the Assembly. The Kosovo* Judicial Council has also enacted the Code of Professional Ethics for Judges, which aims to regulate the rules and conduct of judges in Kosovo*. The Constitutional Court has also enacted the Code of Conduct for Judges with principles to guide and regulate their conduct. The Prosecutorial Council has issued the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct for Prosecutors. At the local level of government, each municipality has issued a code of ethics that regulates the behaviour and conduct of its officials. Despite a solid legal framework that regulates the conduct of civil servants the data on their actual implementation and the institutional mechanisms that ensure their implementation are missing.

Based on the Law on Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges and Prosecutors, when a judge or prosecutor does not act in compliance with the Code of Conduct, that action is considered a violation of the duties of judges. In those situations, the judge commits a disciplinary offense. Disciplinary proceedings are conducted before the Kosovo* Judicial Council or Kosovo Prosecutorial Council.

Back in 2013, a methodological guide was developed by the Moldova State Chancellery in order to provide practical support for the implementation of the current Code. The guide provides clear examples on ways a public servant shall be guided by the following principles: legality, impartiality, independence, professionalism and loyalty. The guide has a separate chapter on the legal implications on non-compliance with the provisions of the Law.

The Methodological Guide covers all the provisions of the Law on the Code of Conduct for Civil Servants of the Republic of Moldova and includes a compliance-related chapter. It is a guidebook that aims to support both public servants and citizens in understanding the value of the Code of Conduct in the public sector.

Despite limited resources, local authorities can fully embed the principles of the Code of Conduct into everyday activities:

• Local authorities can organise mini training sessions on the Code of Conduct, based on the guide, and ensure that both local authorities’ staff and members of the Local Council are familiarised with the provisions of the Code.
• A mini guide, with most essential aspects, can be compiled and handed in to all staff of local authorities, and an ongoing updating process can take place once every few months.
• The Code can be published online, on the websites of local authorities.
• Local authorities can assess the effectiveness and improvement opportunities against some baseline data and targets, develop a list of indicators to help measure progress, and communicate the results to the citizens.

In addition to the above, a guide for the local elected representatives has been written with the support of development partners, aiming to address 100 questions related to local good governance in the Republic of Moldova.

Back in 2017, the government had created a Training Module on the Ethics and Integrity of Civil Servants. However, according to the Public Administration and Local Governments Reforms in Eastern Partnership Countries report (2017), the training programmes stipulated by existing legislation are not fully implemented, and the mandatory number of training hours for each civil servant is not fulfilled in practice.  

The National Agency of Ukraine for Civil Service provides “General Rules of Ethical Conduct for Civil Servants and Local Government Officials”. The guidelines cover four blocs: general duties of civil servants and local authorities; use of official position; use of state resources; exchange of information and obligation to provide access to public information. Every new public official must be informed about the rules of ethical conduct. Moreover, their compliance with these rules is assessed in an annual evaluation.

Within the project ‘Transparent cities’, the NGO Transparency International Ukraine provides guidelines for the 100 largest cities in Ukraine, based on the assessment of each city in the fields of transparency and accountability. The methodology for assessing the transparency of cities evaluates the existence of local acts that would approve codes or similar documents of deputy ethics, as well as the ethics of officials of local executive bodies and utilities.

Among the main criteria that determine the level of professional ethics are the following:

1. Is the Code of Ethics for Members of the Council or a similar document adopted at the municipal level and published? Does this document contain the principles of non-discrimination and gender equality?
2. Is there a Code of Ethics or a different local act adopted and published which regulates the rules of ethical conduct of local self-government officials, staff of municipal enterprises, institutions and organisations, community-founded associations or organisations where a 50% or higher equity stake belongs to the territorial community, as well as organisations which are partially funded by the community?

Other criteria can be found in the new 2020 City Transparency Ranking Methodology.

Complaints mechanisms at the local level are important in that they provide a channel for addressing citizens’ concerns and problems. Citizens can submit complaints through one-stop shops at local government units and can seek redress of their concerns and problems through sending letters of complaint or calling a dedicated phone number created for this purpose. Local government units have internal regulations that stipulate the procedures for addressing and resolving complaints and they should provide complaint-form templates to facilitate citizens’ feedback and subsequent documentation of their complaints and the responses provided. In addition, there are online tools in place to file complaints, such as Stop Corruption (www.stopkorrupsionit.al), Ask the State (www.pyetshtetin.al) and Improve Your City (www.permiresoqytetin.al), among others. Nevertheless, there is a lack of data on citizens’ concerns towards public institutions on most of those online platforms, especially towards local government units. This is compounded by a general lack of citizens’ trust in public institutions at the local level, especially in the fight against corruption.

Complaints mechanisms as a component of the right to address public authorities, is regulated by Article 53 of the Constitution of Armenia, stating that everyone shall have the right to submit, either individually or jointly with others, petition to state and local self-government bodies and officials and to receive an appropriate reply within a reasonable time period.

Developing complaints mechanisms is critical in order to reveal problems, resolve them and improve government services in order to increase the public trust. This is of particular importance for the local level as it is first contact point for citizens in accessing public services, and it is important to deal with them in accordance with the principles of transparency and openness.

The local government is still in process of formation in Armenia, as hundreds of communities will undergo amalgamation/consolidation process. Also, it is not well established as still many issues are resolved at the central or regional governor's level and there is lack of daring to resolve own issues, dependence on central level decision making as well as lack of independence (given the possibility to remove). 

In order to ensure high quality public services, the Ministry of Justice of Armenia established its first Joint Office of Public Services in the centre of Yerevan, gathering services of the Civil Registry Agency, the State Register of Legal Entities, the State Revenue Committee, the National Archives, the Social Security Service, the Migration Service, the Cadastre Committee, the Funeral Bureau, as well as notary services. The Joint Office of Public Services was established in accordance with the Action Plan of the Government of the Republic of Armenia for 2019-2023, in order to facilitate the lives of citizens using public services. It is based on a one-stop shop principle for providing public services. Generally speaking, the system of feedbacks, including the statistical and content analysis is not well developed in the country.

Complaints mechanisms about the work of administrative bodies belong to the segment of service delivery, that is they form a significant pillar of the reform area related to the creation of a citizen-oriented administration. Through SIGMA/OECD¹  reports and European Commission reports for Bosnia and Herzegovina, it is continuously pointed out that public administration in Bosnia and Herzegovina is inefficient and that the legal framework for citizen-oriented administration differs significantly from one level of government to another. In general, the perception of citizens about public services, namely services provided by public administration bodies, is very low. 

Although it is stated that the territorial and administrative structure significantly affects the differences in administrative procedures, not only between the entities and the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but even between individual cantons in the case of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,  citizens' trust in local government is growing.  

According to the findings of the TI BiH Perception of Public Administration, in 2014 30.4% of citizens stated they mostly have trust in local administration, compared to 2017 when this percentage was 42.3%. Asked if they have complained about the work of public administration officials, in 2014 11% of surveyed citizens replied that they complained orally to the superior of the public administration official, while in 2017 8.9% of surveyed citizens provided this answer. In 2014, 2.5% of surveyed citizens complained in written form, while in 2017 this percentage was 1.4%.  

1. SIGMA (Support for Improvement in Governance and Management) is a joint initiative of the OECD and the European Union. Its key objective is to strengthen the foundations for improved public governance, and hence support socio-economic development through building the capacities of the public sector, enhancing horizontal governance and improving the design and implementation of public administration reforms, including proper prioritisation, sequencing and budgeting. We have been working with our partners on strengthening their public governance systems and public administration capacities since 1992.

In Kosovo*, the right to appeal and to use legal remedies is a constitutional right that is regulated by the Constitution of Kosovo*. The use of legal remedies is regulated under the Law on General Administrative Procedure, which allows citizens of Kosovo* to “question” administrative acts that they think violate their rights and legal interests. However, citizens face a challenge in exercising their rights and using these mechanisms in practice due to prolonged court proceedings.

The Constitution of Kosovo* establishes the Ombudsperson as an independent institution. Its role is to monitor, defend and protect the rights and freedoms of individuals from unlawful or irregular actions act of public authorities. Competences and responsibilities of the Ombudsperson are regulated by the Law on the Ombudsperson. The importance of the Ombudsperson remains very high due to the fact that many citizens turn to this independent institution for the protection of their rights and legal interests when other means prove unsuccessful.

Another important mechanism available for citizens to complain and address their issues is the Committee on Human Rights, Gender Equality, Missing Persons and Petitions within the Assembly of Kosovo*. The scope of this committee includes co-operation with the Ombudsperson and reviewing the petitions that are addressed to the Assembly. This way, every petition is initially reviewed and analysed by this Committee. Not later than two weeks after the date of reception of the petition, the chairperson of the committee submits it to the committee, proposing at the same time the manner of legal settlement or rejection of the said petition. If the committee deems it appropriate, resolving the matter may authorize the chairperson of the committee to submit a statement at the plenary session of the Assembly.

According to the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2019, the Republic of Moldova scores 0.49, with scoring ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates the strongest adherence to the rule of law. Thus, the Republic of Moldova ranks 83 in the global rank (with 126 participating countries) and ranks 9 in the top 13 countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, which Georgia leads.

Given the broad definition of complaints mechanisms and right to participate in public affairs, a range of different remedies may be required, but necessary to all is an existing and functioning judiciary that is independent and impartial.

The Good Governance component (central and local administration) in the Action Program of the Government for 2016-2018 (22) states: “To introduce minimum quality standards for public services and an indicator system to monitor/assess their quality, as well as instruments to submit complaints related to public services provided under standard.” However, there is no evidence of the results of this activity from the plan.

When it comes to accountability in the public sector, it is important to mention that the Ombudsperson's institution has not reached full operational capacity, while citizens' right to compensation for damage caused by maladministration or omissions is not fully ensured. Among weaknesses related to service delivery are:

• Public services delivered to citizens are not based on the same standards across all public institutions and no institution is responsible for defining and ensuring minimum quality benchmarks in service delivery;
• An institutionalised legal framework to protect citizens against maladministration and unjustified administrative decisions does not exist;
• Users with special needs face many challenges in accessing public services and obtaining information about services.

Complaints mechanisms fall under the citizens’ right to address public authorities, as enshrined in Article 40 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Since July 2015, when the amendments to the Law “On Citizens’ Appeal” allowed citizens to submit petitions electronically, several local authorities have created e-platforms for citizens’ appeals, which boosted citizen participation.

Article 19 of Law No. 139/2015 “On Local Self-Government” stipulates that any citizen or group representing communities has the right to address requests, complaints, or objections to local government bodies on matters pertaining to functions and competences within the jurisdiction of the local government unit.  Local government bodies are obliged to consider claims, appeals or remarks, and to reply within the deadlines set by the law. Law No. 44/2015 “On the Code of Administrative Procedures” regulates the procedure for administrative appeal in cases when the complaint is not taken into consideration. The one-stop-shop principle provided in this Code is a good legal basis which contributes to the effectiveness of complaints mechanisms.

The Office of the Commissioner for the Right to Information and Protection of Personal Data also assesses complaints in cases when the mechanism of the right to information is applied.

Other specific procedural laws also provide the legal basis for addressing requests, complaints or objections submitted to local government bodies on specific matters. 

There are no specific legal provisions requiring establishment of complaints mechanisms for local government, and given the lack of central government’s regulation or facilitation of such process, the local self-government bodies are free to adopt complaint mechanisms on a voluntary basis.

The Law on Petitions gives an opportunity to raise issues of public importance or to report on the shortcomings of the activities of state and local self-government bodies and officials.

The mechanism of citizens' complaints about the work of administrative bodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be viewed from different levels of government that communicate with citizens in the performance of their constitutionally and legally defined competencies. Thus, the mechanism of citizens' complaints about the work of the state, entities and Brčko District bodies is regulated by the current laws on administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina,  the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska  and Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  These laws prescribe the obligation of administrative bodies to enable all natural and legal persons to submit petitions and complaints about the work of administrative bodies and the improper attitude of employees in those bodies when citizens turn to them to exercise their rights and interests, or fulfil their civil obligations.

When it comes to the mechanism of citizens' complaints about the work of local authorities, it is guaranteed by Article 46 of the Law on Principles of Local Self-Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina  and Article 117 of the Law on Republic Administration of the Republika Srpska.

The state-level administration law and the law of the Federation of BiH each define sanctions for the responsible person in the administrative body and administrative organisation if (s)he does not act upon petitions or complaints of citizens (Article 104 BiH Law on administration prescribes sanctions as fines ranging from BAM 150 to BAM 500; Article 150 of the Federal Law on Administration prescribes sanctions as fines ranging from BAM 300 to BAM 2000). In contrast, the laws of the Republika Srpska and Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina do not prescribe any sanctions. Based on the above-mentioned laws on administration and laws on local self-government, local governments issue rulebooks, instructions, guidelines, and other similar acts that regulate in detail the procedures for citizens' complaints about the work of local government institutions.

In Kosovo*, the use of complaint mechanisms is regulated by the Law on General Administrative Procedure. This Law aims to protect the rights and legal interests of people when public authorities provide services of public interest. It is applicable every time a public body, while exercising its public authority, issues a decision on rights, obligations or legitimate interest of a person, concludes an administrative contract or exercises their competencies through other administrative actions.

This law provides for these forms of legal remedies: administrative appeal, administrative objection and reopening of proceedings. In its Chapter 2, this law regulates the entire procedure of administrative complaints. It sets out the general rules for filing an appeal against administrative acts and the conditions that a complaint must meet in order to be permissible. Chapter 3 regulates administrative objection, which must be filed against a real act or against the non-performance of a real act requested by the party. Finally, Chapter 4 refers to the reopening of a proceeding, under certain cases, if the party has not lodged a complaint within the deadline defined within the law.

In order to ensure high quality public services, the Government of the Republic of Moldova established its Public Services Agency on 26 April 2017. The Public Services Agency was set up in accordance with the provisions of the Public Administration Reform and the Action Plan on the Reform of Public Service Modernisation for 2017-2021. It is based on a one-stop shop principle for providing public services and ensuring their digitization, including the streamlining of operational processes and the reduction of costs incurred by citizens.

The Law on the Administrative Code no. 116 as of 19.07.2018 introduced a separate procedure for regulating citizens’ complaints, and local authorities ought to follow the established complaints mechanism to receive feedback on the services they provide.

Law No. 393 “On Citizens’ Appeal“ defines (Article 3, paragraph 4) and regulates (Articles 16-19) the application of complaints mechanisms. Both national and local authorities are obliged to objectively consider citizens’ complaints, to compensate citizens for any breach of their rights and to provide justification for any decision taken in the examination of complaints. The violation of the abovementioned Law leads to the disciplinary, administrative or criminal liability of public officials (Articles 24-25).

In addition to the internal procedures of local government units, the Office of the Commissioner for the Right to Information and Protection of Personal Data has created a procedure for complaints and has designed a standardised letter for complaints for those cases where the right to information is not yet observed and promoted by local government units. To improve their efficiency at local level, public authorities should develop and implement a clear process of complaints procedures whereby each citizen’s problem and concern is considered and resolved promptly and comprehensively.

Currently there are no concrete settings for the establishment of complaints mechanisms, as those mechanisms should be adapted to the local context, taking into consideration factors such as cultural norms, existing institutions, social patterns, etc. Even though there are no concrete settings for developing a complaints mechanism, there is broad a consensus on key principles which suggest that the mechanism should be transparent, independent, accountable, accessible, safe and easy to use.

It is worth mentioning here a reference guide on best practices for the implementation of effective complaint mechanisms made by Transparency International. The purpose of this document is to set out guiding principles and good practices for establishing and implementing complaint mechanisms which provide safe channels for citizens to alert a public or private institution about any corruption risks or incidences.

As previously mentioned, there is no centralised approach to the system of citizens 'complaints about the work of administrative bodies and their employees. Each local government regulates the system independently, adopting, based on the previously mentioned laws, its procedures, guidelines, and instructions for citizens' complaints. Some local governments publish their guides on their websites along with a “form” for citizen complaints. Thus, for example, the Municipality of Ugljevik has published Instructions for submitting and resolving citizens' complaints on its website.  The City of Bijeljina published Instructions for submitting and resolving complaints on its website, together with the form for submitting complaints.   The Municipality of Tomislavgrad  and other cities and municipalities have done likewise.

As of the beginning of 2021, there is no national or local guidelines on complaints mechanisms. A possible reason for the lack of such guidelines is because the Law on General Administrative Procedure regulates in detail the procedure for lodging and managing complaints.

The good governance component of the Government Programme for 2016-2018 introduced minimum quality standards for public services and monitoring indicators for quality assessment, as well as tools for the submission of complaints regarding delivered public services. The current Government Programme for 2020-2023 includes objectives such as the increase of the quality and accessibility of public services provided for citizens and business, and the improvement of the electronic services provided to citizens and entrepreneurs.

The manual Tools of e-democracy in Ukrainian cities encourages local authorities to combine online and offline citizen complaint mechanisms. While the online form simplifies the complaints procedure and is mostly addressed to young people, the possibility to submit a complaint offline engages older citizens, or those who are sceptical towards new technologies. The creation of special citizen complaint centres, and the good accessibility and ease of the complaint process are highlighted as good practices.

According to “Corruption in Albania, Perception and Experience”, a survey by the Institute for Development Research and Alternatives (IDRA) in 2016, the public perceives the level of responsiveness of local governments in addressing citizens’ requests regarding local projects and developmental issues as “good”. The survey data indicated that respondents consider the redress of citizens’ complaints as “average”, but secondary data reveals comparatively better satisfaction rates vis-a-vis the resolution of complaints.

Although some municipalities report a generally good level of resolution of complaints, a substantial number of municipalities publish neither statistics on the annual numbers of complaints filed by citizens and businesses nor the number of resolved complaints. It is evident that some municipalities have neither an integrated system for complaints management nor an effective system for tracking filed complaints.

Every state should act as a guarantee of protection of fundamental human rights. One of the ways of such protection is judicial and non-judicial protection. The Constitution of Armenia states that everyone has the right to effective judicial protection of his rights and freedoms. This provision is related to the right for everyone to apply to international bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms. Closely related to the right to judicial protection is the right to a fair trial, which is considered a fundamental right of a person, enshrined in Article 63 of the Constitution.

The right to a fair trial should be interpreted in the light of the rule of law, which requires the trial participants to have effective remedies to enable them to defend their civil rights. The trial includes the combined examination of all the related claims, which are aimed at solving one common problem, that is, the restoration of the violated right of the person within the framework of that case.

The effectiveness of courts in providing legal protection is conditioned by the fact that judicial acts that have entered into force are binding for execution in the entire territory of the Republic of Armenia by the persons to whom the judicial act refers. Enforcement of judicial acts is ensured through the Compulsory Enforcement Service within the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia.

The practice of using redress mechanisms is being developed on these days as the Armenian population becomes more and more educated in legal aspects and own rights.

The grievance redress mechanism falls under the concept of institutional accountability. The organisation of public administration has a significant impact on its general functioning and its democratic legitimacy in terms of citizens' expectations. The responsibility of public administration implies, in fact, several segments within which administrative bodies must act to perform their functions efficiently and adequately (rationality, transparency, accountability, accessibility). Responsible institutions should provide citizens with a fair resolution in cases of wrongdoing or illegal actions. This is one of the five SIGMA principles within the area of liability. It implies that public bodies take responsibility in cases of violations and guarantee redress and/or appropriate compensation.  This institute is partially regulated by law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and even less is known in practice.

Redress mechanisms are one of the tools used to ensure accountability from public bodies toward its citizens. Also referred to as “grievance redress mechanisms, are sought in those situations when a public body enacts an act that adversely affects the rights of citizens in any form. Kosovo* does not have a current law that regulates redress mechanisms or their procedure. However, cases in which an administrative act of a public body causes direct or indirect harm to a person are foreseen in the Law on Administrative Conflicts. This law regulates competencies, composition of the court and rules of procedure when deciding on the lawfulness of administrative acts. As per Article 18, the plaintiff in an administrative conflict may be a natural person, legal entity, Ombudsperson, and other associations and organisations which protect public interest. In all these cases, injured parties can submit a complaint to the competent court, and may also request an extraordinary review of the legal decision to the Supreme Court of Kosovo*.

As of 2021, in Kosovo* there is not an administrative court that would specifically address administrative conflicts. However, within the Basic Court of Pristina, the Department for Administrative Matters is competent to deal with administrative conflicts from all over Kosovo* This department adjudicates and decides in the first instance on administrative conflicts based on lawsuits filed against final administrative acts and other issues defined by the Law on Administrative Conflicts. Due to the fact that there is only one Department for the whole territory of Kosovo*, it makes it hard for citizens to address their issues. The access to this Department is not easy and traveling from different parts of Kosovo* to submit a complaint is not always rational and feasible for many citizens. This has led to a number of citizens not addressing their issues and not getting compensation for their damage.

The provision of timely and high-quality public services in the Republic of Moldova is a priority of the central and local authorities. Consecutive strategic policy documents have been implemented nationwide in this sense. Mostly, the previous governments have focused their efforts on systemic institutional and financial reforms. The regulatory framework has continuously been optimised to ensure compliance with the international law, the Development Agenda 2030 and the harmonisation with the EU Acquis. The provision of public services has been modernised through the creation of one-stop-shops, electronic services, including electronic payments to adapt to the citizens’ needs.

Still, the instruments designed to measure nationwide citizens’ satisfaction with the accessed services were only sporadically implemented and are not constantly observed. Integrated data are available within public perception surveys, such as the Public Opinion Barometer conducted bi-annually, by the Survey on the Impact of the National Integrity and Anti-corruption Strategy for 2017-2020, conducted in two editions and other sectorial surveys. In an attempt to implement the reforms, the authorities are conducting surveys on their official webpages, although lately this practice is scarce. At the moment, a consolidated mechanism for ensuring observance and redressing of the citizen’s rights as a person or as a business when these are breached by public authorities, is not available.

The local authorities provide a wide range of administrative services in the educational, healthcare and social fields, administrate housing-and-communal services, tax, cadastral and civil status services. Still, the redressing procedures are treated as usual complaints and the authorities do not keep track of the number of solutions identified upon citizen requests for an administrative intervention. Usually, after the examination of a complaint, in case of a non-satisfactory solution, the applicant is advised to take the case to the court. Nonetheless, citizens are entitled to expect a high level of transparency, efficiency, swift execution and responsiveness, regardless of whether they are making a formal complaint or exercising their right of petition.

Pursuant to Law 119/2014, all the municipalities have established a structure to handle the filed complaints, known as the Complaints Office, Public Information Office, Appeal Office or Public Relations Office, where citizens can raise issues of concern and file complaints or requests. The workflow, timeframes and other details related to the processing of complaints and requests are specified in the legislation. Other mechanisms that citizens can use are citizens’ open days organised by the municipalities, dedicated windows in the municipality official website, and municipal phone numbers. Several small municipalities, such as Memaliaj, Këlcyrë, and Libohovë, have reported that they lack standard redress mechanisms or complaints are filed by citizens either as handwritten letters or through informal communication, which makes the process difficult to manage and complicates the authorities’ ability to provide formal responses.

Other procedural laws also provide the legal basis for redress of complaints submitted to local government bodies on specific matters. These provisions provide legal deadlines applicable to the available redress mechanism.  

The existence of the independent institution of People’s Ombudsman established by Law no. 8454 ”On People’s Ombudsman”, as amended, represents an additional guarantee for an effective redress mechanism.

The main provisions of the Armenian Constitution on redress found their regulation in the Law on the Fundamentals of Administration and Administrative Procedure, the Code on Administrative Offenses, the Administrative Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, etc.

In order to protect their rights, individuals have the right to appeal against administrative acts, as well as actions or inactions of an administrative body. This provision is stipulated in Article 69 of the Law. The administrative complaint may be submitted to the administrative body that adopted the act or to the superior administrative body of the administrative body.

The administrative act may be appealed both in an administrative and judicial manner. If the appeal was committed simultaneously, the appealed act is subject to judicial review, and in this case the proceedings initiated in the administrative body should be terminated.

An examination of the legal provisions on the right to a fair trial provides an opportunity to come to a conclusion that in case of alleged violation of his / her right, the person may apply to the court with restoration or other claims. This right may not be unreasonably restricted. It is also enshrined in the RA Constitution, according to which everyone has the right to compensation for damage caused by unlawful actions or inaction of state and local self-government bodies and officials, and in cases prescribed by law, also by lawful administration.

The Yugoslav Law on Obligations of 1978, adopted by Bosnia and Herzegovina, the entity levels of government and the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and ultimately applied by local levels of government, is the most comprehensive legal framework for public accountability, regulating in detail the principles of liability and redress procedures. In the context of the right to seek compensation for damages caused by illegal actions or omissions of administrative bodies, Article 172 of the Law on Obligations is relevant, which, however regulates "only" the liability of legal entities for damage caused by its bodies. This article does not explicitly refer to the responsibility of public bodies. It does not explicitly state the responsibility of public administration bodies for adopting public policies and regulations that harm citizens or liability for violating regulations. However, its application includes liability for detriment caused by actions or omissions of administrative bodies and private bodies performing public functions.

In addition to the above, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Law on Administration and the Law on Republic Administration of the Republika Srpska established the general principle of liability of administrative bodies for damages caused to a natural or legal person by their illegal actions.

The Strategic Framework for Public Administration Reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the period 2018-2022 envisages the measure entitled "Improve the mechanism for protection of the right of individuals to good governance and public interest". It means ensuring functional internal and external mechanisms for protecting this right, including providing consistent and fair handling of administrative disputes guaranteed through administrative appeals and judicial control, as well as improvement of procedures and mechanisms for public bodies to take responsibility in cases of violations of regulations with redress and/or adequate compensation.  The accompanying Action Plan for Public Administration Reform envisages a number of steps to implement the Strategic Framework measure in question. 

Compensation for damages is regulated by the Law on Administrative Conflicts. The law regulates the administrative conflict before the court in cases when a party files a suit against an administrative act. This law states that the administrative conflict begins with an indictment or lawsuit. This law gives injured parties the right to ask for compensation of the damages that were caused from the execution of the administrative act. Besides the compensation of damages, the plaintiff has the right to request restitution.

Until 2018, some elements of the administrative procedure were regulated by a few documents, such as the Law no.793/2000 on the Administrative Court and the Law no. 190/1994 on petitioning. The lack of coherence, clarity and accessibility combined with misinterpretation during application, led to frequent infringements on citizen’s legitimate rights and interests.

During the legislative procedure for the approval of the new Administrative Code, the Government of the Republic of Moldova emphasised the need for a unified document that clearly describes the remedies available and the procedure to be followed for the submission of an appeal, the immediate correction of any clerical, arithmetic or similar error and the procedure to be followed for the revision of decisions adopted which affect adversely the interests of a person and those which are beneficial to that person.

The Administrative Code adopted by the Law no.116 in 2018 assembled the legal norms on the administrative procedure conducted by the public institutions (Book 1), systematised the regulations and legal institutions specific to the administrative procedure (Book 2 of the Code) and those related to the judicial examination of administrative litigations (Book 3) aiming to ensure compliance with the rights and freedoms, safeguarded by the law, of the physical persons and legal entities.

The Integrity Law no.82 as of 25.05.2017 regulates the field of integrity in the public sector at political, institutional, and professional levels, including the responsibilities of public authorities for cultivating, consolidating and controlling integrity and sanctioning the lack of integrity in the public sector. The Law also provides the elimination of the consequences of corruption acts, inter alia, establishing the right of the competent authority to order (Article no. 48, para. 1), upon the request of the victim, the reparation of damages caused by certain contraventions if there are no divergences regarding the damage extent.

A swift communication channel between citizens and authorities is represented by the Anti-Corruption and information telephone lines system. The Regulation of the anti-corruption telephone line systems’ operation approved by the Law no. 252 of 25.10.2013, describes three levels of the telephone line system comprised by: national (of the National Anti-corruption Centre) and specialised anti-corruption lines and institutional lines for information. All these three lines are intended to be active simultaneously within the central and local authorities in order to receive, by telephone, any information regarding corruption acts, to examine the information received and take the necessary measures, including the presentation of that information to the competent body and/or provide assistance to the citizens.

An additional redress mechanism is provided by the Law on the People's Advocate (Ombudsperson) no. 52/2014. According to art.18, the Ombudsperson examines the complaints on the decisions, actions or inactions of the public authorities, organisations and companies, no matter of the type of property and legal organisation form, of the non-commercial organisations and responsible officials at all levels who, in the petitioner’s opinion did violate his/her rights and freedoms.

The accountability of municipal departments is enhanced by citizen complaints management and redress mechanisms, and municipalities declare that they have mechanisms for lodging complaints, but the response mechanisms are not effective.

The recommendations of the Supreme State Audit Institution (ALSAI) and of internal audit bodies serve as an important control mechanism for almost all Local Governance Units (LGUs), but more emphasis should be placed on increasing the role of municipal councils, which need to be periodically informed about the progress made and the problems encountered during the implementation of their decisions. There is also a need to open the municipal council meetings up to the public and provide space for citizens and stakeholder groups to raise complaints or grievances in a concerted way with a view to securing prompt action, such as redress or policy adjustments to prevent repeat of the harm done.

In 2018, Armenian Government declared as a top priority the development and implementation of a coordinated policy of institutional protection of human rights. In this context, in 2019 the government approved the National Strategy for the Protection of Human Rights and its Action Plan for 2020-2022. The strategy provides an assessment of the human rights situation, as well as previous action plans, outlines the principles, goals, priorities of this strategy, monitoring and coordination, accountability and assessment mechanisms. Specific and measurable actions have been planned for the implementation of the goals and issues of the Strategy, which are reflected in the 2020-2022 Action Plan. The Action Plan addresses the following areas of human rights protection: right to life, prohibition of torture, right to a fair trial, freedom of assembly and information, right to health, labor rights, right to education, right to property, equal rights, the prohibition of discrimination, protection of children's rights.

 A well organised and functional public administration is a key precondition for transparent and effective democratic governance. Good public administration is the foundation of the functioning of the state because it is the administration that determines the ability of the governments to implement key reform processes and provide quality services to citizens. The criteria for the accession of countries to the European Union (EU), including Bosnia and Herzegovina's aspirations for membership, emphasize the need to create and have strong public administrations that will have the capacity to follow the principles of good public administration. SIGMA Principles of public administration are the result of the European Commission's focus on reforming the public administrations of countries aspiring to membership in the EU.

The SIGMA principles cover six key areas, including the area of “Responsibility”. The basic requirement of this area implies the existence of appropriate mechanisms that will ensure the accountability of public administration bodies, including transparency of action.

The latter implies that:

1.           the legislation contains a requirement to correct or compensate the damage to individuals who suffer damage from illegal actions of public bodies,

2.           the regulation on public responsibility is coherent, complete, logically structured, formulated in a simple and clear manner, and easily accessible,

3.           the scope of public accountability is wide and includes the exercise of powers by the public and the performance of other public duties, regardless of who performs them (a public body or a private person performing public duties),

4.           the rules concerning time limits and the burden of proof do not jeopardize the effective exercise of the right to bring an action for damages. 

One of the key recommendations of SIGMA in the 2017 Report for Bosnia and Herzegovina is to simplify and clarify the official typologies of administrative bodies at all levels of government. It is crucial to ensure that all bodies subordinate to the government are subject to a single and comprehensive accountability scheme in the context of planning, reporting and monitoring. Given that the legal framework for public accountability exists, but there is no information on its practical application, one of the recommendations is that governments at all levels establish mechanisms to monitor court cases that result in increased government accountability to improve administrative procedures and decisions and reduce the risk of cases of public liability in the future. 

Although there are currently no guidelines that regulate the redress mechanisms in Kosovo*, its institution may start utilizing the best international practices. According to Transparency International Complaint Mechanisms - Reference Guide for Good Practice effective complaint mechanisms are a key tool to identify and prevent corruption and other malpractice. The sooner Kosovo* institutions complete an effective complaint mechanism the stronger the potential to strengthen their credibility and reputation.

The Administrative Code empowers public authorities to conducts their own administrative procedures for solving a complaint and restoring a citizen’s breached right. It also describes in detail the administrative procedure, distinct from the prior request and the administrative law judicial litigations. According to the article no.9 of the Law, any request, notification or proposal addressed by a physical person or legal entity to a public authority is treated as a petition:

• The request calls for the issuance of an individual administrative act or the performance of an administrative operation
• The notification informs the public authority about a matter of personal or public interest
• The proposal seeks for the performance of some actions of public interest by the public authority.

The Code describes in Book 2 the non-judicial administrative procedure, establishing:

• the statute of the participants, their competencies and representation within the administrative procedure,
• terms, initiation and finalizing stages within the procedure,
• institutional, transparency, communication and costs aspects,
• clarification of the examined situation and obtaining evidence, including witnesses and experts’ citation and hearing,
• administrative acts’ issuance procedure, the legal regime applied to the administrative contracts and their execution,
•  the preliminary administrative procedure (prior to the administrative court procedure).

Extremely relevant for the local public authorities, as part of the issuance of administrative acts procedure, are:

• Chapter 4 of the Title 3, articles 143-153 which regulate various options for the public authorities to cancel and terminate the legal effects of individual administrative acts, up to the prior request.
• Title 4 Administrative Contract, providing the possibility for the public authorities instead of issuing an individual administrative act, to sign an administrative contract with the person to whom the administrative act would have been addressed, which may take the form of a reconciliation contract or exchange contract.

In May 2014, the National Coordinator Against Corruption (NCAC) and the Ministry of Justice, with the assistance of the Dutch government through Utrecht University, began drafting the Law “On whistle-blowers and the protection of whistle-blowers”. This law serves to achieve a greater transparency of public and private institutions by creating a better environment for employees to step up and denounce corruption cases. The law defines corruption-related offences, delineates the competences of the internal mechanisms, and pinpoints which body should serve as the external reporting mechanism, and defines how the protection of whistle-blowers should be ensured. In addition, the law applies both to the public and private sector. It was adopted in Parliament on 2 June 2016. By Decree of the President of the Republic No.9647, the law entered into force on 8 July 2016. Its legal effects extend from 1 October 2016, with the exception of legal effects for internal whistleblowing for private subjects, which started on 1 July 2017. This was a commitment of the second and third Open Government Partnership (OGP) National Action Plans 2014-2016 and 2016-2018, and continues to be a commitment of the National Action Plan of 2020-2022.

The need to regulate the legal regime of whistle-blowers in Armenia was first enshrined in the Concept of fight against corruption in the public administration system, adopted in 2014. On June 9, 2017 the RA Law of the Republic of Armenia “On the Whistle-blowing System” was adopted.

The system of whistle-blowing in Armenia is decentralised. There is no central authority in Armenia with the specified mandate for providing protection and ensuring oversight, monitoring, collection of data regarding the protection of whistle-blowers. Individual state and public bodies have to establish reporting channels, receive and investigate reports and provide protection.

In the long run the proper function of the protection of whistle-blowers may become a major tool for increasing transparency and accountability. For these purposes, the unified electronic platform for anonymous reports by the whistle-blowers at www.azdararir.am  was created. The electronic platform helps persons willing to anonymously report about corruption offences prescribed by the Criminal Code and is operated by the Prosecutor General’s office. This system does not foresee reports on conflict-of-interest cases, violations of ethics rules, incompatibilities and other restrictions. Moreover, as the Prosecutor General’s office screens the reported cases, it does not communicate the non-criminal complaints to relevant authorities, including to CPC, which in its turn is not connected to the platform.

In response to TIAC’s inquiry Prosecutor General office informed that in 2020 it has received 140 reports related to corruption, of which 119 were anonymous.  Only one case received through the electronic platform has been referred by the Prosecutor General’s office to Investigative Service for opening a criminal case.

Back in 2019, the European Commission published the Opinion on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s application for membership of the European Union,   which identified 14 key priorities that Bosnia and Herzegovina must meet in order to open membership negotiations and gain candidate status. The opinion emphasizes in particular that corruption is widespread and that the strategic policy framework and the institutional and legal framework for the fight against corruption are fragmented and show significant shortcomings. In this regard, one of the key priorities within the "rule of law" area that BiH must meet is the adoption and implementation of regulations on conflicts of interest and the protection of whistle-blowers.

This was confirmed in the independent report of experts on the rule of law in BiH ("Priebe's report") from 2019, where it was emphasized that the criminal justice system in BiH does not fight corruption. Although there are preventive institutional mechanisms in BiH to fight corruption, their role is minimal. The Agency for Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against Corruption of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the umbrella institution for adopting and implementing key policies in the fight against corruption. However, the role of the Agency is very limited. Priebe's report states that the Agency failed to impose itself as a central institution in the fight against corruption, including in the field of whistle-blower protection, where whistle-blower protection is cited as a key mechanism in the fight against corruption.

The field of whistle-blower protection in BiH is fragmented and limited – in both the legal and institutional framework. Currently, there are three laws in force in Bosnia and Herzegovina related to the protection of whistle-blowers – in the Republika Srpska, in the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina (state level), and in the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina. When it comes to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the past few years, there have been several attempts to adopt a law, but it has not passed the necessary parliamentary procedure. The drafting of the new Law on the Protection of Whistle-Blowers in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently underway. Its drafting is planned by the Work Programme of the Federal Ministry of Justice in the third quarter of 2021. 

In Kosovo*, the legal framework that regulates the protection of whistle-blowers is well defined and is broadly in line with international standards. In 2018, Kosovo* enacted a new law that regulates the protection of whistle-blowers. The Council of Europe has shown an ongoing support to Kosovo*’s institutions in the area of whistle-blowing and the drafting of this new law. The new Law on Protection of Whistle-blowers is a direct outcome of the Council of Europe’s Project against Economic Crime (PECK II). It expands the framework of whistle-blowers’ protection to cover both the public and the private sector. It includes a three-tier approach as envisaged by the Council of Europe standards and offers clear procedures for protection of whistle-blowers.

Despite the fact that Kosovo*’s Law on the Protection of Whistle-blowers is seen as the most advanced law in the region, it lacks proper implementation. Even though officers were appointed in over 175 public institutions to handle whistle-blower complaints, whistle-blowing mechanisms and protection requirements need to be strengthened. Regarding this issue, Council of Europe held a meeting in October 2020 with the representatives of civil society organisations (CSOs) active in the field of protecting whistle-blowers. This meeting aimed at developing strategic partnerships with the CSO sector to support the establishment of a functioning whistle-blower mechanism in Kosovo*.

Whistle-blowers in Kosovo* not only were not protected but they were punished for their reporting. Murat Mehmeti was the team leader of Kosovo*’s Tax Investigations Unit within the Tax Administration of Kosovo*. One of his investigations showed that before 2012, over 300 Kosovo* businesses claimed tax deductions by filing fake invoices issued by shell companies. Mehmeti claims that the tax fraud reaches “an industrial scale,” and has cost the Kosovo* budget millions of euros. He decided to report the issue to the anti-corruption platform Kallxo and reveal the scheme on the BIRN television program “Jeta ne Kosove.” Mehmeti brought criminal charges against the companies at the Kosovo Special Prosecution, which in turn started an investigation of its own. Because of his reporting, he was threatened and transferred from his job.

Whistle-blowers are one of the most far-reaching sources for uncovering illegal and unethical practices at the workplace, regardless of whether it is a public or private institution. They have the best knowledge on the situation from the inside, can report violations "directly from the source" and should be an essential element of the institutional integrity climate of any entity in the Republic of Moldova, as established by the Integrity Law no.82 as of 25.05.2017 and developed by special legislation. However, the implementation of the whistle-blowing mechanism faces some challenges.

Whistle-blowers are often associated with "snitches". Employees may also be reluctant to make disclosures, as their professional or personal lives may be affected.

A solution to overcome the challenges outlined above could involve awareness raising on the importance of disclosing illegal practices at the workplace, the provision of accessible information on the whistle-blowing procedures and protection guarantees, and training for legal professionals on the enforcement of the national and international regulatory framework in the field of whistle-blower protection.

Nowadays, the protection of whistleblowers in Ukraine is a very relevant issue. The legal ground for the creation of guarantees for whistleblowers protection is represented in article 60 of the Constitution of Ukraine, according to which “no one is obliged to execute obviously criminal orders or regulations”. Furthermore, under certain provisions of the anti-corruption legislation, whistleblowers are exempted from the liability for disclosure of information. However, the above-listed provisions are not enough for whistleblower protection, as to a greater extent, the provisions have declarative rather than of procedural nature. So there was a request for the law to create the legal basis for whistleblower protection.

Based on the Criminal Code, the Law on Whistle-blowing and Whistle-blower Protection considers as reportable criminal offences of corruption all illegal actions or inactions, as per the criminal legislation in force, related to any and all forms of active and passive corruption, abuse of office or power, exercising illegal influence in the performance of duties or decision-making, misuse of state budget revenues, illegal profits, bribery or grafts, as well as any other acts similar to the above.

The law provides three elements of a comprehensive law on whistleblowing:

• Mechanisms for reporting on corrupt acts;

• Mechanisms for investigating reported whistleblowing; and

• Mechanisms for protecting whistle-blowers from retaliation.

The law applies to all people working in the public and private sector and includes some of the best international practices on whistle-blower protection, such as:

• Credible protection of confidentiality;

• Protection from harassment that aim to create an aggravated environment for the whistle-blower;

• Prohibition of contractual agreements based on which the whistle-blower’s rights and protection are ruled out or limited;

• The option of transfer in case the whistle-blower chooses to not return to the same workplace and to relocate to another place to protect themselves from hostile reactions; and

• Charging with personal responsibility for retaliation against the whistle-blower.

Although four years have passed since the adoption of the law, the situation in local government units regarding the adoption of bylaws presents some problems. None of the ten largest municipalities in the country complied within the legal deadline of six months from the effective date of the law, with the requirement for the approval of special internal regulations on the procedure of reviewing the administrative investigation of signalling of illegal conduct or wrongdoing and on the mechanisms of protection of confidentiality. By 2021, only seven municipalities, namely Korça, Durrës, Tirana, Gjirokastër, Lezhë, and Kukës, had fulfilled their legal obligation to approve the relevant regulations, although two years after the legal deadline. Three other municipalities (Shkodra, Dibra and Vlora) had not yet approved these regulations.

 The Law on Protection of Persons Reporting Corruption in the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina Institutions,  which entered into force in January 2014, regulates the status of persons reporting corruption only in state-level institutions and legal entities established by Bosnia and Herzegovina institutions. It regulates the reporting procedure, obligations of institutions regarding reporting corruption, protection procedure and sanctions for violations of the provisions of this law. Therefore, this law applies only to whistle-blowers within the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which represents a relatively “small number” of potential whistle-blowers and it is not applicable to other levels of government (and thus not to local levels of government).

The Law on Protection of Persons Reporting Corruption of the Republika Srpska,  adopted in 2017, regulates the protection of persons reporting corruption, the procedure for reporting corruption, the obligations of the responsible person and competent authorities regarding the reporting and protection of persons reporting corruption, and other issues important for persons who report corruption. Unlike the state law, the Law on Protection of Whistle-Blowers of the Republika Srpska prescribes protection for all natural and legal persons who report corruption in the public or private sector in the Republika Srpska, as well as local authorities in the Republika Srpska.

The Law on Protection of Whistle-Blowers of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina  was adopted in 2018 and is very similar to the state law. It protects a broader number of persons – all employees in public institutions and other legal entities in the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

On the other hand, the Law on the Protection of Whistle-Blowers in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina has not yet been adopted but is being drafted. According to a report by Transparency International Bosnia and Herzegovina, the analysis of the draft law that is being prepared indicates a great similarity with the legal solution adopted in Republika Srpska.  Therefore, with the draft Law still under discussion, the legal protection of whistle-blowers is not yet regulated in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is not known, once enacted, what level of whistle-blowers protection will law provide. This means that potential whistle-blowers in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina do not enjoy legal protection, as in Republika Srpska, the Brčko District or institutions at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Georgian legislation defines whistle-blowing as informing by a person (whistle-blower) of the body reviewing the application, investigator, prosecutor and/or the Public Defender of Georgia about a public servant who has violated or may have violated Georgian law or norms of general ethics and conduct, which has harmed or may have harmed public interest or the reputation of the relevant public institution. Informing the civil society or the media about the above-mentioned violation shall also be considered as whistle-blowing after the decision of the body reviewing the application, the investigator, the prosecutor or the Public Defender of Georgia.^[i]The definition of Georgian law is not fully in line with the definition of the Council of Europe, because unlike the latter, Georgian law on the Conflict of Interest and Corruption in Civil Service only lets public disclosure by a whistle-blower after a decision has been made by the relevant body. In addition, unlike the Council of Europe, Georgian legislation does not cover the private sector.

Since 2019, Kosovo* regulates whistle-blowing with the Law on the Protection of Whistle-blowers. The purpose of this law is to enable the whistle-blowing of violations that might happen in the public and private sector, as well as to ensure the protection of those whistle-blowers. This law defines whistle-blowers as a “person who reports or discloses information on a threat or damage to the public interest in the context of own employment relationship in the public or private sector”. This law sets out the rules and procedures on whistle-blowing, the rights of whistle-blowers and the obligations of public institutions and private entities regarding whistle-blowing.

The Republic of Moldova has created a satisfactory legal framework on whistle-blowing: Law no. 122 of 12.07.2018 on Whistle-blowers and Government Decision no. 23 of 22.01.2020 for the approval of the Regulation on examination and internal reporting procedures for the disclosure of illegal practices. Until the entry into force of these normative acts, the whistle-blowing disclosure field was covered by the Government Decision no. 707 of 09.09.2013 on the approval of the framework Regulation on whistle-blowers, repealed on 24.01.2020.

The Law no. 122 on whistle-blowers regulates disclosures of illegal practices within public and private entities, the procedure for examining such disclosures, the rights of whistle-blowers and their protection measures, the obligations of employers, the competencies of the authorities responsible for examining such disclosures and of the whistle-blower’s protection authorities.

The purpose of the Law on whistle-blowers is to increase the number of cases of disclosure of illegal practices and other disclosures of public interest by promoting the integrity climate in the public and private sectors; ensuring the protection of whistle-blowers in the process of investigation of public interest disclosures of illegal practices; preventing and sanctioning retaliation against whistle-blowers.

For the effective implementation of some provisions of the Law on whistle-blowers, by Decision no. 23 of 22.01.2020, the Government approved the Regulation on the procedures for examination and internal reporting of disclosures of illegal practices. It establishes the procedure for the internal reporting of disclosures of illegal practices by employees of public and private entities, the procedure for recording and examining disclosures of illegal practices, the recognition procedure of the whistle-blowers’ status and the application of protective measures against employees who disclose in good faith and in public interest an illegal internal practice.

On 1 January 2020, the Law of Ukraine № 198-IX “On Amending the Law of Ukraine “On Corruption Prevention” Concerning Whistleblowers” came into force.[i] The new amendments established additional protection for the whistleblowers and their families.

The Law is a significant step forward in the protection of whistleblowers and gives strong incentives for reporting corruption, for example:

1. whistleblowers are released from legal liability for good faith reporting of corruption; 
2. whistleblowers entitled to pro bono (free of charge) legal help, psychological assistance and confidentiality;
3. whistleblower's employers are prohibited from imposing disciplinary sanctions, dismissing;
4. whistleblower's employers are prohibited from rejecting a whistleblower or a relative from consideration for a job because they reported corruption.
5. whistleblowers have the right to report possible facts of corruption anonymously as well as receive monetary remuneration for a report etc.

A whistleblower reporting corruption or a corruption-related offence where the estimated amount of the benefit or damage caused to the state exceeds 5,000 times the minimum living wage for able-bodied persons (i.e., more than UAH 11 million as of July 2021) has the right to receive monetary remuneration. The amount of the remuneration shall be 10% of the estimated amount of the benefit resulting from the offence or damage caused to the state.

The law established the legal foundation for NACP to create and administer an anonymous, secure unified government-wide Whistleblower Reporting Channel (or “Portal”). The Portal will make it easier and safer for whistleblowers to report corruption and reduce the risks of unauthorized access to their communications.

Although state institutions and other stakeholders have been mostly focused on the legal and institutional infrastructure for implementing the legal requirements, 2017 marked the first results of the implementation of the whistle-blower protection legislations. Namely, eight cases of reports in state institutions have been administered by HIDAACI in 2017, which shows marginal changes in government practice for civic participation in reporting wrongdoings in institutions that are subject to this law.

Despite the importance of this commitment in creating a formal framework to strengthen the fight against corruption and address other malpractices, its implementation has not yet resulted in observable changes for increased public access to information on reported cases or changed practices of public accountability.

In order to facilitate the process of whistle-blowing in Armenia, the Government has developed the unified electronic platform for anonymous whistle-blowing, adopted in 2018, on the basis of the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Armenia "On approval of the technical description and the order of operating of the unified electronic platform for whistle-blowing". The Decree established the guides and procedures of regulating the unified electronic platform for whistle-blowing.

When the whistle-blower reports anonymously, their anonymity is guaranteed by encrypting his Internet Protocol Address. Persons visiting the platform are provided with the opportunity to choose their preferred option between whistle-blowing anonymously and / or whistle-blowing by way of submitting data, fill in the data corresponding to the method of whistle-blowing selected in the relevant fields, attach the electronic materials related to the report, confirm the report upon verification of the data filled out and submit it to the system’s reports management module. The e-platform also contains guides on how to blow the whistle anonymously, how to do that through submitting data, what should be done after whistle-blowing, how to hide Internet Protocol Address of the device, etc.

In 2019, TIAC in cooperation with TI - Czech Republic, published the Whistle-blower’s Guide, the purpose of which is to present the legislation and regulations as simple as possible for the potential whistle-blowers. Additionally, a number of templates and awareness raising video clips have been developed to support whistle-blowers to act competently in situations that they may potentially face in real life. The Whistle-blower’s Guide pays attention to such relevant issues as the rights of whistle-blowers and their affiliates, their responsibilities, how to protect the rights of whistle-blowers and their affiliates, the role of the media for whistle-blowing.

There is no single legal and institutional framework for whistle-blower protection in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The existing legal framework is inconsistent, and whistle-blower protection rights are uneven in the context of internal or external protection. In addition, the current laws in force cover "half" of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, so persons who are and work in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina do not enjoy legal protection in accordance with the prescribed standards. Despite the lack of a legal framework for protection, whistle-blowers in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina can also turn to the Centre for Free Legal Aid of Transparency International, providing protection to all persons who report corruption since 2003. According to the last published Report for 2020, out of 240 reports acted upon by the Centre, 18 reports were categorised as "whistle-blowing".

The existing laws in force stipulate that the institutions to which the application of the law applies must issue instructions or other internal acts regulating the procedure upon internal reporting of corruption and protection of the person who reported corruption. When it comes to state law, in 2015 the Agency for Prevention of Corruption and Coordination of the Fight against Corruption of Bosnia and Herzegovina published an example of the Rulebook on Internal Reporting of Corruption and Protection of Persons Reporting Corruption in State-Level Institutions  to facilitate its adaptation and adoption in all BiH institutions. In addition, the Agency published a short brochure explaining the procedure for reporting corruption.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, civil society organisations have a very important role to play in promoting and advocating for whistle-blower protection activities. The Manual for the Protection of Whistle-blowers in State-Level Institutions  was developed within the project Anti-Corruption Network of Civil Society Organisations in BiH - ACCOUNT with the financial support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). In addition to the review of key international standards of protection and the review of the legal framework in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the manual contains a special section dedicated to providing explanations and instructions on the procedure for reporting corruption and the protection procedure covered by the law on reporting corruption in state-level institutions.

The Law on the Protection of Whistle-blowers stipulates that the Government of Kosovo*, at the proposal of the Ministry of Justice, must issue a sub-normative act within six months from the date of entry into force of this law (which dates from 23 November 2018) to determine the procedure for receiving and handling the whistle-blowing cases. Despite this provision, the Government has not enacted any sub-normative act yet.

Article 17 also imposes obligations on the employer, namely:

• A public employer with more than 15 employees, and a private employer with more than 50 employees must appoint a responsible official, as well as define and publish internal procedures for receiving and handling whistle-blower complaints.
• The employer must take all necessary measures regarding whistle-blowing, including the protection of relevant documentation and evidence from disappearance, concealment, alteration, falsification and other actions aimed at their destruction or extinction.
• The employer must protect the whistle-blower from any detrimental act and take all necessary measures to stop and remove any consequence of a detrimental act.

The European Union / Council of Europe Project against Economic Crime in Kosovo* (PECK II), published the Handbook on the Protection of Whistle-blowers, which provides practical guidance for both institutions and potential whistle-blowers on reporting violations and processing complaints.

According to the Law on whistle-blowers, the whistle-blower is the employee who makes a disclosure. The employee is defined as a physical person, who has or has had in the last 12 months the status of employee, trainee or volunteer as per the labour legislation, or contractual or civil legal relations with an employer, be it a public or private entity.

The disclosure (good faith disclosure by an employee of an illegal practice that constitutes a threat or harm to the public interest) may be made to the employer (internal disclosure), to the National Anti-Corruption Centre (external disclosure) or publicly (mass media, posts on social networks, etc.). The employee can make the disclosure:

• in writing, following the model forms in the Annex 1 and 2 of the Law on whistle-blowers;
• online, through the electronic disclosure system of the employer (if any) or of the National Anti-Corruption Centre;
• verbally, by communicating to the anti-corruption telephone line of the employer or of the National Anti-Corruption Centre.

Article 11 of the Law establishes the conditions for the registration of a disclosure of illegal practices in the Register of Illegal Practices and Integrity-related disclosures and, implicitly, the recognition of the whistle-blower’ status. The authorities responsible for examining disclosures of illegal practices are the employers, in case of disclosures of internal illegal practices, and the National Anti-Corruption Center, in case of external illegal practices disclosures.

The term for examining the disclosure of illegal practices is 30 days, calculated from the date of registration in the Register of Illegal Practices and Integrity-related disclosures. The whistle-blower will be informed about:

• the term for examining the disclosure of illegal practices;
• the extension of the term;
• the fact that the disclosure will be examined under the conditions and terms provided by the Contravention Code or by criminal procedure when a contravention or a criminal process is initiated based on the disclosure.

If the whistle-blower is subject to retaliation (through actions, inactions or threats) by the employer or another person within the public or private entity in which they operate, they are entitled to seek protection. The protection authorities are either the employer (in case of internal disclosures of illegal practices) or the Ombudsperson (in case of external and public disclosures of illegal practices). The Ombudsperson examines the request for the protection of whistle-blowers and contributes to their defence in accordance with the Law no. 52/2014 on the Ombudsperson.

The request for protection is examined within 15 days, calculated from the date of its registration. The whistle-blower is informed about the results of the examination.

Section 14 of the Law on whistle-blowers sets out the following safeguards for whistle-blowers’ protection:

• the transfer of the whistle-blower or of the person undertaking retaliation actions, during the examination of the protection request, to another subdivision of the public or private entity in which they operate, while maintaining the specificity of their activity, in order to exclude or limit the influence of the person undertaking retaliation actions in connection with the disclosure of integrity incidents or illegal practices;
• sanctioning the person who retaliated in connection with the disclosure of integrity incidents or illegal practices or, as the case may be, of the head of the public or private entity for failing to ensure protection measures;
• cancelation of the disciplinary sanction, which was applied to the employee as a result of a public interest disclosure made in good faith;
• compensation for material and moral damages incurred as a result of revenge.

The liability for violating the provisions of the Law on Whistle-blowers is set out in Article 18. Thus, the disciplinary and/or contravention liability of the Employer or the National Anti-Corruption Centre (including their representatives) is valid for: failure to take measures to ensure the disclosure of illegal practices within the entity; non-observing the confidentiality of the employees who disclose illegal practices; failure to ensure protection measures for the employees recognised as whistle-blowers; disclosure of the whistle-blowers’ identity to the persons allegedly responsible for the illegal practices he/she invokes. Meanwhile, contravention or, as the case may be, criminal liability may be incurred for failure to take measures to terminate or suspend the acts that are prejudicial to the public interest and / or to prevent the acts that may cause subsequent damage to the public interest and/or retaliation against the whistle-blower.

In cooperation with the Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine, NACP presented the training course “Detector in law” to the attention of civil society.

The training course aims to help viewers to learn about:

1. whistleblowing (rights and guarantees of protection under the law);
2. corruption in general and how to report corruption through government websites, etc.

TI Ukraine prepared the first “Handbook for Corruption Whistleblowers” with practical aspects of protecting whistleblowers’ rights. TI Ukraine also participated in the follow-up work on the eventually approved draft of Methodical Guidelines for NACP on Organisation of Work with Whistleblower Reports on Corruption.

The system of declaration of assets and financial obligations has been one of the most important legislative steps in Albania, reflecting the key requirements of the UN Convention against Corruption. However, the legislation on the conflict of interest and its implementation has been hampered by a number of factors and, therefore, its application has been partial and fragmented. One of the main obstacles is the gap between the broad scope of the law and the inadequate capabilities to ensure its effective implementation.

Disclosure of declarations of assets, income and interest for public officials and servants was mainly formed by the Law on Public Service adopted in 2011, and was managed by the Commission on Ethics of High-Ranking Officials of Armenia, in 2012. Following the change of the Law on the Public Service in 2018, the mentioned commission was replaced by CPC, established in 2019 and guided by the Law on Corruption Prevention Commission.

Since 2015, an electronic system was established for the declaration of assets and incomes for the high-ranking officials as well as their related persons. In the period from 2018 to 2021, the new Law on Public Service completely revised the declaration system, enlarging the scope of declarants for about 5 times – from about 750 in 2011 to more than 9 000 in 2021. The scope of family members has been clarified – including the juveniles. The template of declarations for all the declarant persons has been unified - for the time of entering the office, annual declarations and leaving the office.

The content of the declaration has also been revised. The scope of data has been expanded, the threshold of the expensive property subject to declaration has been reduced, the requirement to declare the actually used property has been introduced, the types of loans and income have been clarified. Starting from 1 January 2022, the obligation to declare assets and incomes will be extended to the members of political parties’ permanent governing bodies.

The scope of publication of data of declarations has been expanded gradually over years. The only data not public in present is the personal data and the declaration of juveniles.

When it comes to declarations of assets and conflicts of interest, it is necessary to distinguish between the obligation to report data on income and ownership of assets and financial interests on the one hand and the existence of a possible conflict of interest of public servants or employees in administrative bodies and elected officials on the other hand.

Depending on the level of government, the areas of disclosure of assets and conflicts of interest are regulated differently. At some levels of government, the obligation to report assets and the existence of conflicts of interest are regulated for both civil servants and all employees in administrative bodies, while at some levels of government, such as the level of institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, this is not the case. The obligation to report assets data for appointed officials is more or less centralised.

Declaration of assets, property and gifts is one method to fight corruption. In addition, declaration of assets is a vital tool to ensure transparency and to fight corruption and to further enable control of the origin of property. Since January 2013, non-declaration of assets is recognized as a criminal offense. Proper prosecution of non-declaration of assets is extremely important in fighting corruption in Kosovo*. For the first time in 2010, Kosovo* enacted a law that regulates this issue and since then Kosovo* has been working on creating a culture on the importance of disclosure. In 2019, almost 99% of public officials submitted their annual declarations of assets on time. Despite this high percentage, 62 cases were investigated for false declaration and other 60 cases for irregularities detected in asset declarations.

While the e-declaration system introduced by the National Integrity Authority is mandatory, together with a mechanism for filling civil servants’ assets and conflict of interest statements, challenges remain, such as concerns about the Authority’s independence, stemming from its selective delivery of certificates of integrity to individuals who had been sentenced to jail.

Some other challenges include low salaries for integrity inspectors, which have been drastically reduced under the new Law on a Unitary Salary System, and a lack of collaboration with CSOs and the journalists who brought to its attention substantiated cases of corruption.

The launch by NACP of the electronic asset declarations system (public.nazk.gov.ua), which represents the single state database of asset declarations, and making these declarations accessible online are considered crucial accomplishments in the area of fighting against corruption in Ukraine. Further positive developments include the technical upgrade of the e-declaration system and strengthening the NACP’s capacity to support system users.

The system became not only a tool of public scrutiny and transparency but also an instrument for law enforcement bodies to hold accountable those liable for corruption offences. Despite several attempts to sabotage the system and obstruct its implementation, an unprecedented number of public officials have disclosed their assets and declarations of conflicts of interest.

The introduced system is relevant and applicable to local elected representatives and public officials.

The Law No. 9049 “On the Declaration and Audit of Assets, Financial Obligations of Elected Persons and Certain Public Officials” defines the rules for the declaration and audit of assets, the legitimacy of their sources, and the financial obligations for public officials, their relatives and persons close to them. As per Article 40, any violation of the obligations set forth in this Law may constitute a criminal offense or an administrative infraction, which is punished by fines based on the nature and degree of such violation.

The High Inspectorate of Declaration and Audit of Assets and Conflict of Interest (HIDAACI) administers the declaration of assets and financial obligations, and the audit of this declaration, according to the specifications outlined in the laws of declaration and conflict of interests. Moreover, based on the Law No. 9367 “On the Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Exercise of Public Functions”, the HIDAACI, in the quality of central authority responsible for the implementation of the said Law, manages and improves the policies and mechanisms regarding the prevention of conflict of interest; offers technical assistance and advice on legal initiatives undertaken by public institutions for the prevention of conflict of interest; and monitors, audits and evaluates the exercise of this Law, among its main functions.

The Law on Public Service completely regulates the system of declarations and its management is centralised and implemented by CPC.

The Law on Public Service mentions 4 groups of public officials, obliged to declare their assets, income, expenses and interests. They are officials holding:

1. political public positions (e.g. positions of the President, Deputies of the National Assembly, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, Secretary of the National Security Council, Ministers and their Deputies, positions of community leaders, their deputies, members of the community council, members of the community councils of communities with a population of more than 15 000, heads of administrative districts of Yerevan community, their deputies, secretary of the staff of Yerevan Municipality, members of the Community Council of Yerevan);

2. administrative public positions (e.g. Chief of Staff of the President, his deputies, Chief of Staff of the National Assembly, his deputies, Chief of Staff of the Prime Minister, his deputy, etc.);

3. autonomous public positions (e.g. Human Rights Defender, Judges, Prosecutor General, Prosecutors, Heads of Investigative Bodies, Deputy Heads, Investigators, members of independent and autonomous bodies, etc.);

4. discretionary public positions (e.g. Advisors, Press Secretaries, Assistants to the President, the Prime Minister and other state officials, etc.).

Additionally, the obligation to declare relates to the following groups of public servants: civil servants holding leadership positions (1nd and 2nd sub-groups); higher commanding positions of military service and higher officer, senior positions of tax, customs services, on persons holding senior positions in the police, penitentiary and judicial services, as well as on the persons holding the highest positions of the state service of the judicial bailiffs and in the staff of the National Assembly.

Public officials and public servants are obliged to submit declarations of assets and income before taking the respective position. Declarations on an annual basis and after leaving the position include information on assets, income and expenses. The declarations also include any adult living together with the public official / public servant as well as under their guardianship.

Declarations on assets, income, expenses and interests are submitted by the persons holding public office (except persons holding discretionary public positions), as well as by the heads of communities, their deputies, secretaries of the staff of the municipality, members of the community councils communities with a population of more than 15 000, heads of administrative districts of Yerevan community, their deputies, secretary of the staff of Yerevan Municipality, members of the Community Council of Yerevan.

Declaration of interest is submitted only by the heads of communities, their deputies, secretaries of the staff of the municipality, members of community councils with a population of more than 15 000, heads of administrative districts of Yerevan community, their deputies, secretary of the staff of Yerevan Municipality, members of the Community Council of Yerevan. Thus, the heads of the administrative districts of the enlarged community and their deputies do not submit a declaration of interests.

In order to enhance transparency and accountability at the local self-governance level, there is also a need to develop a disclosure at local level. Local community servants do not submit assets and income declarations. The Law on Public Service also does not apply to the members of community councils with a population of less than 15 000.

The legal framework for conflicts of interest is regulated through several laws, primarily depending on whether it affects civil servants and employees or elected officials. All civil service laws at the level of institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina (state level), the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska, the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the applicable cantonal laws prescribe the incompatibility of certain functions with the work of a civil servant. In addition, when appointed as civil servants, civil servants are obliged to present all information on the property available to them or their family members, as well as on the activities and functions performed by the civil servant and his family members. Unlike the state law, which more broadly prescribes the obligation to provide property information, the Law on Civil Service in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina stipulates the responsibility of a civil servant to present all information on property available only to the civil servant (without mentioning family members) when being appointed in civil service.

The Laws on Civil Service in the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina additionally prescribe the obligations of the competent authorities to keep this data in the records or registers of the civil service in accordance with the regulations on data protection.

Although the Law on Civil Servants of the Republika Srpska  similarly prescribes incompatibilities with the duties of a civil servant, it does not contain provisions on the obligation of a civil servant to present all information about the property (s)he has at her/his disposal during his appointment. On the other hand, unlike other valid laws on civil service, articles 22 to 22b of the law of the Republika Srpska contain special provisions that define conflicts of interest, and appropriate actions in case of conflicts of interest. Article 22a stipulates that if a civil servant has kept silent about the existence of a conflict of interest during employment, the head of the institution is obliged to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In accordance with article 22b the same applies to the case when the civil servant has not eliminated the reasons leading to the conflict of interest within the prescribed time limit. Article 67 of the Law on Civil Servants and Employees in Local Self-Government Units of the Republika Srpska stipulates that a person can be employed in the city or municipal administration who, among other things, is not in a conflict of interest, namely does not perform a duty incompatible with duties of officials in the city or municipal administration.

The Election Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina regulates the election of members and delegates of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina and members of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and determines the principles that apply to elections at all levels of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina. When it comes to property statements of elected officials, Article 15.7 of the Election Law stipulates that “candidates elected at all levels of government, including local self-government, are required to submit to the Bosnia and Herzegovina Central Election Commission, on a certain form, a signed statement of their total assets…”, and that “the elected member at all levels is obliged to submit a report on the financial situation to the Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina within 30 days after the expiration of the mandate for which he was elected, as well as in case of termination of mandate… within 30 days from the end of mandate ”. In accordance with article 19.10, in the case of non-compliance with the obligations, fines in the range of 300.00 to 3,000.00 KM are prescribed.

The issue of conflicts of interest of elected officials, executive office holders and advisers is regulated through four laws - the Law on Conflict of Interest in Government Institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Law on Conflict of Interest in Government Bodies in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Law on Prevention of Conflict of Interest Srpska, and the Law on Conflict of Interest in the Institutions of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina.¹ Laws are enacted to prevent and / or sanction situations in which public officials may benefit themselves or persons with whom they are family or otherwise related may benefit through the performance of their functions.

The Central Election Commission of Bosnia and Herzegovina is responsible for law enforcement at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Brcko District. In the Republika Srpska, there is a special Commission for the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest in the Republika Srpska authorities, as a first instance body formed by the Republika Srpska National Assembly and as a second instance body the Commission for Appeals. Sanctions are envisaged for violating the law – including measures prohibiting candidacy for any elected position for four years, and fines ranging from BAM 1,000 to 10,000.

The Law on Declaration, Origin and Control of Property of Senior Public Officials and on Declaration, Origin and Control of Gifts of All Public Officials regulates the obligation and the procedure of declaration of assets and gifts of public officials. This law obliges public officials to declare their assets, revenues and gifts, including their origins, to the Anti-Corruption Agency. This declaration can be made upon taking office, as a regular annual declaration, at the request of the Anti-Corruption Agency and after termination or dismissal from office. All declarations are sent to the Anti-Corruption Agency. The Law on Declaration and the Law on the Anti-Corruption Agency assigns this agency as the sole competent authority for the maintenance, registration and administration of these declarations.

Article 17 provides sanctions for anyone who violates the obligations set out in this law and does not declare their assets and property within the legal deadline. If these violations are not criminal offences, then public officials commit a misdemeanour and are sanctioned with a fine depending on the violation committed. In addition to fines, other protective measures can be imposed, such as a ban on exercising public function for up to 1 year. In cases when violations of provisions constitute a criminal offence, then the Anti-Corruption Agency files a criminal report. In situations when non-declaration constitutes a criminal offence, Article 430 of the Criminal Code of Kosovo* will be applicable. This article sanctions false declarations as a criminal offence as well. Besides the fine, imprisonment and confiscation of assets will be imposed as punishments.

Despite general agreement that the system for the verification of asset declarations should be improved, the reform has been met with strong political resistance. New legislation introduces harsher sanctions for unjustified wealth and conflicts of interest, and ultimately would affect many dishonest public servants and dignitaries. The European Union and the World Bank reacted decisively to the resistance of the Moldovan Government, suspending financial assistance and requiring specific structural reforms, including one that is aimed at strengthening the oversight role and independence of anti-corruption institutions.

Thus, by mid-2016 the legislative package on integrity was passed by the government and Parliament:

• Law No. 132 of 17 June 2016 on the National Integrity Authority;
• Law No. 133 of 17 June 2016 on Declaration of Assets and Personal Interests, and;
• Law No. 134 of 17 June 2016 on the Amendment and Completion of Legislative Acts, all of which are part of the package of laws on integrity.

Article 13 of the Law on Integrity No. 82/2017 sets the framework for the “compliance with the regime for declaring assets and personal interests”, while Article 14 of the same law sets up the framework for the compliance with the conflicts of interest regime.

The legal regulation for the disclosure of assets declarations is provided in Chapter VII “Financial Control” (Articles 45-52) of the Law No. 1700 “On prevention of corruption”. Since 15 July 2016, two Regulations of the Ministry of Justice announced the process of disclosure and initiated the launching of the electronic asset declarations system for those persons authorised to perform public functions, either at national or local level.

National, regional and local authorities, as well as members of their families, are obliged to disclose their assets (real estate, monetary funds, cash, loans, etc.) and to declare possible conflicts of interest (job position, contracting services, participation in the civil council, etc.).^[i] This data remains open and available on a single state database of asset declarations.

The NACP controls the deadlines, examines lawful submission of declarations, the accuracy of the information, and monitors whether the declared assets correspond with the public official’s lifestyle. In case of misconduct, the NACP informs the special anti-corruption agencies. The misconduct leads to disciplinary, administrative (Article 172-6 of the Administrative Code) or criminal (Article 366-1 of the Criminal Code) liability.

In support of local government anti-corruption efforts, the HIDAACI has developed and make available the Guide for Prevention of Conflicts of Interest in Local Governance together with its Explanatory Manual. The Guide gives information on:

• What is conflict of interest in local governance (definition, types of conflict of interest, who is involved in conflicts of interest);
• Prevention of conflict of interest;
• Limitations on local government officials for the prevention of conflicts of interest;
• Basic measures for treating and solving conflicts of interest;
• Sanctions;
• Illustrative examples of administering and solving cases of conflict of interest.

The Explanatory Manual for the Prevention of Conflicts of Interest in Local Governance aims at creating standards and unification of practices in administering and solving conflicts of interest at local level. In order to enhance disclosure and prevent conflict of interest, public authorities should act in accordance with the abovementioned Guide adopted by the HIDAACI and its Explanatory Manual.

In April 2020, the existing electronic system for filling declarations has been adapted to the legal changes and in September 2021 CPC approved the new Guidelines for annual declaration of property, income, expenses and interests for public officials and their interconnected persons. The Guidelines describe in detail the annual declarations of the official, his family member's property, income, expenses and interests, as well as the principles and methods of completing the declaration of assumption / termination of official duties by the declaring official or his / her family member.

CPC also has adopted the methodology of verification and analysis of declarations. For the verification of data it is vital to be connected with other existing state electronic databases through the Government Interoperability Platform (GIP) - the centralised data store enabling data sharing from various state databases. The current system has connections to several state databases (police, real estate, companies, tax, loan history, Central Bank depositary) and the linkage with the electronic systems on public procurement, state pensions and benefits is still pending.

The existing system does not allow yet to analyse declarations based on the red flag risks, which is planned as part of modernisation.

Aware of the risk of illegal acquisition of property and conflicts of interest and the need to fight corruption, a new Regulation on the manner of keeping the register of employees in the civil service of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina  was adopted in July 2020. The new Regulation expanded the scope of application, namely record keeping, not only for those who have the status of a civil servant but also for all employees in the civil service bodies in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Regulation also envisages the introduction of a card of assets for all employees. The same applies to all employees in the civil service bodies of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, cantons, cities and municipalities, and other bodies and services unless otherwise regulated by cantonal regulations. On the website www.adsfbih.gov.ba, in the section "Register" it is possible to download all the forms that constitute the so-called e-card of the employee, which is entered in the above-mentioned Register. 

On the other hand, when it comes to assets records and conflicts of interest of elected officials, on the website of the Central Election Commission (www.izbori.ba) the following are available: instructions on the appearance and manner of filling out forms of declarations of assets, forms of declarations of assets, and a user guide for completing the application to submit a statement of assets.  The Central Election Commission has also developed a manual in the field of conflict of interest laws, which explains in detail everything related to the laws, procedures, and case law.  

Currently there is not a specific guideline on declaration of assets and gifts. However, the Law itself provides instructions and explanations on what should be declared and when it should be done. The Anti-Corruption Agency prepares forms in cases of declaration which are accessible online for anyone who is required to complete a declaration (www.akk-ks.org/deklarimi_i_pasuris/). While the asset declaration covers all substantial types of incomes and assets of officials and declaration forms allow for year-on-year comparisons of officials’ financial position, the Anti-Corruption Agency lacks manpower, expertise, technical capacity and legal authority for a meaningful oversight.

The National Integrity Authority has the responsibility to control assets and personal interest declarations of public agents and manages the “e-Integrity” portal allowing the submission of the assets and personal interests declaration, as well as ensuring transparency and public access to this information. The new legislation provides for an online submission and verification of asset and interest declarations (E-integrity system). It is expected that it will increase the efficiency and speed of verification procedures, as the system will be connected to all public and private registers. The electronic submission of declarations has been mandatory since January 2018.

On its website, NACP provides practical guidelines and extensive manuals for public officials on requirements as to the assets’ declaration and disclosure of conflict of interest and how to use the single state database of asset declarations. NACP has also launched the Integrity Building Office responsible for awareness-raising and training activities and a convenient website “Declare 2021”, containing answers to the most frequently asked questions among those who fill out asset declarations. The website was developed in collaboration with TI Ukraine. Besides, NACP provides interactive voice support for the preparation of e-declarations.