Monitoring CoI Moldova 2014 by TI-Moldova

COMUNICAT DE PRESÄ&#x201A;

Monitoring conflict of interests in central public institutions Moldova 2014

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova 2014

This report has been elaborated within the project “Engaging Civil Society in Monitoring Conflict of Interests” funded by the European Commission. The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the donors.

Content

Introduction I.

The legal framework regulating conflict of interests’ policy in the Republic of Moldova – weaknesses and opportunities (legal expertise)

II.

Civil servants about conflict of interest policies in public service (opinion poll)

III. The practices of applying conflict of interests’ policy in public service (central public institutions ranking) IV. Deficiencies in the implementation of conflict of interests’ policy and solutions for improvement (focus group) Conclusions

Introduction This report has been elaborated within the EC funded Action Engaging Civil Society in Monitoring Conflict of Interests. The project is conducted in four EaP countries (Armenia, Moldova, Poland and Ukraine) by six partner CSOs (TI-Moldova, TI-Armenia, TI-Ukraine, Stefan Batory Foundation, Eurasia Partnership Foundation in Armenia and the Ukrainian Public Policies Institute. The first year of the implementation of this Action was focused on strengthening the capacities of the Action Partner organisations to monitor conflict of interests (CoI) in central public institutions. As the result, the partner organisations conducted the following four types of activities: – expertise of the legal framework that regulates CoI and main requirements to the mechanism of its implementation; – conducting opinion polls of public servants from central public authorities and main conclusions that can be drawn from such a poll; – conducting focus group of representatives of HR and internal control departments on main difficulties met when implementing CoI policies; – official requests of information to the monitored central public institutions and analysis of responses; – elaborating policy recommendations to improve CoI policy. The current country report was elaborated by TI-Moldova. Its’ potential beneficiaries are public servants, particularly decision makers, civil society and mass-media. International organisations monitoring the country performances in the field of good-governance and anti-corruption can also find it informative.

I. The legal framework regulating conflict of interests’ policy in the Republic of Moldova – weaknesses and opportunities (legal expertise) In the Republic of Moldova, the main law governing the declaration of personal interests, as well as the conflict of interests identification, treatment and settlement procedure is Law no. 16 of 15.02.2008 on conflict of interest (hereinafter – Law no. 16/2008). Law no. 16/2008 outlines the basic notions, lays out the subjects of personal interests’ declaration, and describes the general principles of conflict of interest treatment and settlement. At the same time, this law contains not only the provisions relating to the conflict of interest and their settlement procedure, and the manner of declaring the personal interests, but also contains provisions concerning certain incompatibilities and restrictions on the control over law enforcement and liability for legislation violation. Certain rules relevant to the object of Law no. 16/2008 are provided also in other special legal acts, the Regulation on the National Integrity Commission, approved by Law no. 180 of 19.12.2011 on the National Integrity Commission (hereinafter - Regulation) being of major relevance. This Regulation governs the legal status of the National Integrity Commission (hereinafter referred to as - NIC): the duties, organization and activity, documents issued and the NIC apparatus. At the same time, the Regulation governs the way how the control over the income and property, conflict of interest and incompatibility is conducted, this being one of the duties of the NIC.

Content analysis Notion of conflict of interest The notion of conflict of interest is defined in Article 2 of Law no. 16/2008. According to this, the conflict of interest means the conflict between exercising the powers held and personal interests of the people envisaged by law, in their capacity as private individuals that can improperly influence the objective and impartial fulfillment of their obligations and responsibilities under the law. Personal interest is any tangible or intangible interest of the persons prescribed by law resulting from their personal needs or intentions, from the activities that may otherwise be legitimate as a private person, in their dealings with close people or legal persons, irrespective of the type of ownership, personal relations or affiliation to political parties, non-commercial organizations and international organizations, as well as resulting from their commitments or preferences. Close persons are: the spouse (husband/wife), persons related by blood or adoption (parents, children, brothers, sisters, grandparents, grandchildren, uncles, aunts) and persons related by affinity (brother-in-law, sister-in-law, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law). Categories of declarants of personal interests and conflicts of interest Law no. 16/2008 lays down the categories of personal interests and conflicts of interest declarants, these covering different levels of civil servants: hierarchical (civil servants, but also people with public dignity functions/positions); territorial (officials from the central public administration, but also from local public administration). At the same time, the list of declarants in Law no. 16/2008 includes also some categories of people with special status, as well as employees of public institutions, state and municipal enterprises, companies with majority state capital, financial institutions that are wholly State-owned or majority owned by the state. In addition to that, Law no. 16/2008 covers some civil servants of the institutions of the state education system and public health system. The provisions of Law no. 16/2008 shall apply to people who are empowered, in accordance with the legislation, to make decisions in respect to the state-owned property or the property of the administrative-territorial units, including monetary funds, or who have the right to dispose of such property, as well as people who are not civil servants, but who are temporarily delegated by the State one of these functions. In this way, in accordance with Article no. 3 of Law no. 16/2008, the subjects of the declaration of personal interests and conflict of interest are the following: 

individuals holding positions of public dignitaries laid down in the annex to Law no. 199 of 16 July 2010 on the status of people with public dignity functions (hereinafter – Law no. 199/2010);



members of the Board of Observers of the National Public Broadcasting Institution – Company “Teleradio-Moldova”; members of the People's Assembly of the autonomous territorial unit Gagauzia; Deputy Director General of the National Health Insurance Company;



managers and their deputies within the administrative authority (public institution) subordinated to the specialized central body, within the State or municipal enterprise, company with a majority Stateowned capital or totally state-owned capital, financial institutions totally or majority owned by the state;



people with managerial and control functions in the institutions within the State education system and public health system;



the staff of the office of people with public dignity functions;



civil servants, including those with special status.

The category of people with public dignity functions, based on the annex to the Law no. 199/2010, includes the following: President of the Republic of Moldova; Speaker of the Parliament; Deputy Speaker of the Parliament; Prime Minister; First Deputy Prime Minister; Deputy Prime Minister; Chairman of the Standing 4

Committee of the Parliament; Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Parliament; Chairman of the parliamentary faction; Member of the Permanent Bureau of the Parliament; Secretary of the Standing Committee of the Parliament; Member of the Parliament; Minister; Deputy Minister; Secretary General of the Government; Deputy Secretary General of the Government; Governor (Bashkan) of the autonomous territorial unit Gagauzia; President of the People's Assembly of the autonomous territorial unit Gagauzia; Deputy Chairman of the People's Assembly of the autonomous territorial unit Gagauzia; Chairman of the Standing Committee of the People's Assembly of the autonomous territorial unit Gagauzia; Prime Deputy Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Executive Committee of the autonomous territorial unit Gagauzia; General Mayor of Chisinau Municipality, Mayor, Deputy Mayor; President and Deputy President of the rayon; General Director (director) of the central administrative authority; chairperson, judge, judge assistant of the Constitutional Court; Chairperson and Member of the Supreme Council of the Magistracy with the core activity in the Council; Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, judge of the Supreme Court of Justice; Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, judge of the Court of Appeal; Chairperson, Deputy Chairperson, judge of the Rayonal Court; General Prosecutor, First Deputy Prosecutor -General, Deputy Prosecutor - General; prosecutors at all levels; Director of the Centre for Human Rights, Ombudsman; Chairman, Deputy Chairman, member of the Court of Accounts; Director, Deputy Director of the Intelligence and Security Service; Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Secretary of the Central Election Commission; Chairman and Member of the Audiovisual Coordination Council; Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Member of the National Commission of Financial Market; Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Member of the National Integrity Commission; Chairman of the Council for preventing and eliminating discrimination and ensuring equality; Governor, First Deputy Governor, Deputy Governor of the National Bank of Moldova; General Director, Director of the National Agency for Energy Regulation; Director, Deputy Director of the National Regulatory Agency for Electronic Communications and Information Technology; Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Member of the Plenum of the Competition Council; Head, Deputy Head of the Territorial Office of the State Chancellery; Director, Deputy Director of the State Protection and Guard Service; Director, Deputy Director of the National Centre for Personal Data Protection; Head of Civil Service Center; Chairman, First Deputy Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Scientific Secretary of the Academy of Science of Moldova; Chairman, First Deputy Chairman, Scientific Secretary of the National Council for Accreditation and Attestation; Head of the State Special Couriers Service; General Director of the National Company for Health Insurance; President of the National Social Insurance House; Director of the State Archive Service; Government Agent - representative of the Government of the Republic of Moldova at the European Court of Human Rights. As regards the staff of the Office of people with public dignity functions, the legal status of this category of people is governed by Law no. 80 of 07.05.2010 on the status of the staff of the Office of people with public dignity functions (hereinafter â&#x20AC;&#x201C; law no. 80/2010). By virtue of Article 2, paragraph (2) of Law no. 80/2010, the following can be assisted by their own Office staff: Speaker, First Deputy Speaker and Deputy Speakers of the Parliament, Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of the parliamentary factions, Members of the Parliament, President of the Republic of Moldova, Prime Minister, First Deputy Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, Ministers, Secretary General of the Government and general directors of the central public administration authorities. In the Offices of such persons, in accordance with Article 5, paragraph (1) of Law no. 80/2010, the following positions can be established: head of the office; adviser; assistant; secretary. The legal status of civil servants is governed by Law no. 158 of 04.07.2008 on public function and status of civil servant (hereinafter â&#x20AC;&#x201C; law no. 158/2008). The provisions of Law no. 158/2008, by virtue of Article 4, paragraph (1), shall be applied to civil servants in the public authorities listed in the Annex no. 1 to the cited law, these being the following: Secretary of the Parliament; Apparatus of the President of the Republic of Moldova; State Chancellery; Secretariat of the Supreme Council of Magistracy; Secretariat of the Constitutional Court; Secretariat of the Supreme Court of Justice; Centre for Human Rights; Apparatus and units of the Court of Accounts; National Anti-Corruption Centre; Central Election Commission; Academy of Science of Moldova; National Council for Accreditation and Attestation; National Integrity Commission; Council for preventing and eliminating discrimination and ensuring equality; apparatuses of other public 5

authorities set up by the Parliament, the President or the Government of the Republic of Moldova; Central public administration authorities and other administrative authorities (central apparatus, decentralized public services, other bodies of the public administration subordinated to the specialized central public administration authorities); Apparatus of the local public administration authorities, autonomous territorial units with special status and their decentralized services; Secretariats of the courts, apparatus of the Prosecutor's Office, bodies of the diplomatic, customs, defense, national security and public order services (people holding public offices in the listed public authorities, whose activity is not regulated by the special legislative acts). Civil servants with special status, under the meaning of Article 4, paragraph (2) of Law no. 158/2008 are the following: employees of the diplomatic service, customs service, defense bodies, national security and public order, and other categories established by law. Mechanism for personal interests’ declaration Law no. 16/2008, Article 13, contains provisions on the declaration of personal interests. In this way, the subjects of declaration are obliged to declare the relevant personal interests. The responsibility for filing the declaration in due time, as well as for veracity and completeness of information, belongs to a person who submits the declaration. The requirement concerning the declaration of personal interests shall be included in all contracts or arrangements governing the hiring, selection or appointment to public office. Filing the declaration on the personal interests does not exempt the person from the obligation to submit other statements according to the law. Law no. 16/2008, Article 14 prescribes the terms for the submission of the personal interests’ declaration, these being the following:  15 days from the date of employment, validation of mandate or appointment in Office, as appropriate;  on an annual basis by March 31;  within 15 days from the date of some changes intervening in the information contained in the declaration;  after the expiry of one year since the termination of activity until 31 March of the following year. The form and content of the personal interests declaration is expressly provided for in Law no. 16/2008. The declaration of personal interests shall be done in writing, on a corresponding template envisaged in Annex no. 1 to Law no. 16/2008, containing information on the following:  paid professional activities;  founder or member of the management, administration, revision or control bodies within some noncommercial organizations or political parties;  associate or shareholder of a company, lending institution, insurance company or financial institutions; and  relations with international organizations. Law no. 16/2008 prescribes the public character of personal interests’ declarations. The information contained in the personal interest statements is of public character and shall be published on the website of the NIC. These provisions, however, do not apply in the case of declarations made by intelligence and security officers. At the same time, by virtue of Article 13, paragraph (2) of Law no. 1264-XV of 19 July 2002 on the declaration and control of incomes and property of persons with functions of public dignity, judges, prosecutors, civil servants and persons in managerial positions (hereinafter – Law no. 1264/1999), referred to also in Law no. 16/2008, are not public and represent confidential information, data from the declarations/statements that refer to: identification number assigned to the declarant; name, surname, year of birth, address and identification number of the family members; address and number of the real estate cadastre; registration number of movables goods; information about the creditors or debtors of the declarant.

Mechanism for collecting and filing statements/declarations In accordance with Article 15 of Law no. 16/2008, within the entities where people obliged to file statements on their personal interests work, there shall be appointed persons responsible for collecting the declarations from the human resources service. The number of people designated depends directly on the number of individuals within the entity concerned who are required to file statements. The declarations of personal interests shall be submitted to the persons responsible for their collection within the time limit set for the submission of declarations. Persons responsible for collecting the statements of personal interests have the following duties: 

   

receive and record the statements of personal interests in a special register, of public character, hereinafter referred to as the Register of Declarations of Personal Interests, which template is given in Annex no.2 to Law no. 16/2008. The Register of declarations filed by the intelligence and security officers is not public; shall issue to the declarant immediately a proof of receipt, which template is given in Annex no. 3 to Law no. 16/2008; upon request, make available the template of the declaration on personal interests to the personnel; provide advice regarding the duly filling in and submission in due time of the declaration; at the request of the declarant, provide advice regarding the application of the legal provisions on conflicts of interest.

Declarations on personal interests and the authenticated extract from the register of declarations shall be dispatched, in hard copy or in electronic format to the NIC by the person responsible for their collection, within 20 days of the receipt of declarations and a copy of the declaration of personal interests and a copy of the authenticated extract from the register shall be attached to the declarant file. These provisions, however, do not apply in the case of declarations made by the Chairman, deputy Chairman and the members of NIC. Their declarations shall be transmitted, within 20 days after the receipt, by the person responsible for their collection to a Special Commission created by the Parliament. Mechanism of conflict of interest declaration and resolution/settlement Chapter II of Law no. 16/2008 contains the provisions relating to the conflict of interest and how to solve it. The declarant is obliged to inform immediately, but not later than 3 days from the date of the finding in writing the hierarchically senior body or manager about the following: 

own interest or interest of a close person related to the decision to be taken personally or he/she must take part in the decision-making process, or action he/she should take in carrying out his own working duties;



own quality or the quality of any closed people as founder, shareholder, partner, member of the Board of Directors, member of the control or review commission of a legal entity (commercial or noncommercial), if this legal entity has received from the public organization, where he/she is working, assets, including monetary funds, loans guaranteed by the State or local public administration authority or a public procurement order.

The President of the Republic of Moldova, members of the Parliament, and members of the Government and other leaders of public organizations need to notify the NIC about any specific conflicts they face. In general, the head of the public organization is obliged to not admit knowingly, the persons working in the organization led by him/her to fulfill their duties at work, being in situations of conflict of interest. The head of the public organization is obliged to notify the NIC about the detection of legal violations. The treatment of a conflict of interest is expressed through the requirements to the subjects of declaration to accept the responsibility for identifying their personal interests, which could enter or are in conflict with their official duties, as well as the requirements to be applied to such persons and public organizations to undertake measures for positive resolution of the conflict of interests. The resolution/settlement of the 7

conflict of interests shall be carried out by examining the situation of conflict of interest, by determining and enforcing the appropriate solution for the positive resolution of the conflict of interest. The treatment and resolution of the conflict of interests shall be carried out by the declarant and head of the public organization. The decision on solving the conflict of interests shall be made by the head of the public organization. Options for resolving positively the conflict of interest are he following:  abandonment or liquidation of the personal interests by the declarant;  objection (prohibition) to the declarant’s participation in the decision-making process with the maintenance of his/her position, where the conflict has a low probability of repetition;  restricting the access of the declarant to certain information;  transfer of the declarant into a non-conflict function;  redistribution of tasks and responsibilities of the declarant, when it is considered that a certain conflict of interests will continue to exist, in which case the objection is not indicated;  the declarant’s resignation from the conflicting position held as a private person. When identifying the best solutions for resolving or addressing a conflict situation, the managers must take into account the interests of the public organization, interest of the public and the legitimate interests of employees, as well as other factors, including, in specific cases, the level and type of position held by the person concerned, the nature of the conflict. The objection involves transferring to a third party the responsibility on decision making or refraining from voting, informing all parties affected about the decision with respect to measures taken to protect the fairness of the decision-making process. The restrictions laid down by the declarant implies a prohibition to participate in the consideration of the proposals and plans subject to a conflict of interest or to receive significant documents or other information relating to his/her personal interest. The declarant is obliged to comply with any final decision that requires him/her to withdraw from the situation of conflict of interest in which he/she is or to forego the advantage which is at the origin of the conflict. Control Mechanism Article 17 of Law no.16/2008 contains provisions on the control of information in declarations. Checking the veracity of the information in the declarations on personal interests is carried out by the NIC, and at its request – by the bodies, which competence, under the law, covers the control of specified information in the content of declarations. The heads of the public organizations and NIC should undertake without delay the measures necessary to settle conflicts of interests that have become known in the declarations and to inform the competent State authorities about the violations detected. The control of declarations on personal interests filed by the Chairman, deputy Chairman and members of the NIC is carried out by a Special Commission created by the Parliament. As mentioned, the NIC is governed by the Regulation. NIC is a collegial body, formed of 5 members, equal in their rights, which are appointed by the Parliament, by a majority vote of the elected MPs, for a term of 5 years. For the position of the NIC member, three candidates are to be proposed by the parliamentary majority, a candidate by the parliamentary opposition and a candidate on behalf of the civil society, selected in an open and transparent manner by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Legal Affairs, Appointments and Immunities from the list of candidates proposed by the non-government organizations In accordance with section 4 of the Regulation, the NIC:  verifies the declarations on the income and property as well as declarations on personal interests;  determines whether there is any obvious difference between the income gained while in office and property obtained in the same period that cannot be justified and shall inform the criminal prosecution body or the tax body about this;  requests the verification of the veracity of information contained in the declarations of personal interests by the bodies which competence, according to law no. 16/2008, is to control the information submitted in the declarations in question; 8



   

determines the violations of the legal provisions relating to conflicts of interest and concerning the incompatibility, informing the relevant bodies in order to attract persons concerned liable to disciplinary action and, where appropriate, with a view to the termination of employment relationships, or service thereof; informs the courts when it was determined that one of the persons subject to the legal provisions relating to conflicts of interest issued/adopted an administrative act, concluded a legal act, has made a decision or participated in the decision making process in violation of the legal provisions relating to conflicts of interest, with a view to establishing the invalidity of the act in question; prepares the annual activity report of the NIC; publishes all declarations regarding the income and property declarations as well as declarations on personal interests on the NIC’s website and ensures their permanent accessibility. drafts and approves the Instruction on how to fill in the declarations relating to income and property as well as declarations on personal interests; determines the contraventions and concludes minutes with regard to offences that refer to the violation of the rules on the declaration of income and property, declaration of personal interests, as well as reports on the failure to enforce the NIC’s requests.

The NIC carries out the control in accordance with Chapter VI of the Regulation. The control is carried out ex officio or at the notification of the natural or legal persons concerned. The ex officio control, including as a result of the mass-media publications, is made on the basis of a report drawn up on the ex officio control endorsed by the CNI. The ex officio control is began by the NIC and, where the subjects obliged to file declarations have not submitted them within 30 working days from the date of expiry of the period within which they were required to submit. The information formulated by the natural person or legal entity must be signed and dated, must indicate the data and information on which it is based, as well as the sources from which these can be requested. Failure to comply with these conditions leads to classifying the information by issuing the respective act on findings. Petitions filed by natural or legal persons shall be examined by the NIC within 30 working days from the date of receipt. As a result of the petition submitted by the natural or legal person or, as the case may be, as a result of the approval by the NIC of the minutes concerning the ex officio control, the data and information contained in the complaint/petition or in the minutes shall be examined, comparing these with the data from the declaration on the income and property and declaration of personal interests. NIC shall immediately notify the person under scrutiny about starting the control procedure. NIC has the right to request from all public authorities and institutions involved, natural or legal persons, the documents and information necessary for carrying out the checks, as well as control the veracity of the data set out in the declarations by the authorities empowered. At the request of the NIC, the heads of the public authorities and institutions involved, natural or legal persons are obliged to communicate or submit to the NIC the data, information, records and supporting documents that may lead to solving the case, on hard copy or in electronic format no later than within 15 working days. After the commencement of the control procedure, the person subject to control has the right:  to review the acts and documents of the file;  to be assisted by a lawyer or a representative;  to submit any supporting documents, which he/she considers necessary. If, following the control, the NIC establishes that the person subject to control has issued/approved an administrative act, has concluded a legal act, has taken a decision or participated in a decision making process in violation of the legal provisions on conflicts of interest, or that the person has been or is in a state of incompatibility, the NIC shall adopt an act on its findings. The act on its findings establishing the conflict of interest or incompatibility is brought to the attention of the person subject to control no later than within 5 working days after the date of its adoption. Within 15 working days from the date when the act on findings in respect of the conflict of interest or incompatibility was brought to the attention of the person subject to control, it may be challenged in the competent administrative court. The act establishing the conflict of interest or incompatibility remains definitive after expiry of the period in which it could be challenged, if not 9

challenged, or on the date when the court decision issued as a result of the examination of the appeal becomes irrevocable. The actions and acts carried out by the NIC, during the control, are not public, except for the act on the findings. Sanctioning Mechanism The national framework establishes also a specific mechanism to sanction the violations of the legal provisions. Thus, according to Article 251 of Law no. 16/2008, the violation of the legal provisions shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences or Criminal Code. The Code of Administrative Offences provides for the administrative liability for violating the terms of declaration of personal interests, as well as for failure to declare any conflict of interest. In this way, in accordance with Article 3302 of the Code of Administrative Offences, failure to file the declaration on personal interests, within the time limits laid down by the legislation, the person required to submit shall be imposed a fine from 75 up to 150 conventional units, the conventional unit being equal to MDL 20. The establishment of the contravention is related to the NIC. The chairman, deputy chairman and members of the NIC are entitled to establish contraventions and conclude minutes. The minutes relating to the offences shall be submitted for examination to the competent courts. Failure to declare the conflict of interest by the person acting within a public authority, public institutions, State or municipal enterprise or within a company with majority state owned capital shall be sanctioned in accordance with Article 3132 of the Code of Administrative Offences with a fine from 100 to 300 conventional units, the conventional unit being equal to MDL 20. The establishment of offence and examination of the case is related to the competence of the National Anti-corruption Center (hereinafter referred to as - NAC). As regards the criminal liability, by analogy with Law no. 1264/1999, although Law no. 16/2008 does not specify this, Article 3521 of the Criminal Code will be applicable, which sanctions perjury in declarations/false declarations. The false declarations means the inadequate statement of truth, made to a competent body with a view to producing some legal consequences for himself/herself or a third person, when, according to the law or circumstances, the declaration serves to produce these consequences. The deed is punished by a fine of up to 600 conventional units, the conventional unit being equal to MDL 20, or with imprisonment of up to one year with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or to exercise a certain activity for a period of up to 5 years. At the same time, Article 12 of Law no.16/2008 establishes, as a possible effect, the invalidity of documents issued, adopted or concluded with the violation of the legal provisions relating to the conflict of interest. According to the cited rules, the NIC shall refer the matter to the court to establish the invalidity of the issued/adopted administrative acts or legal acts concluded in violation of the legal provisions on conflicts of interest. The petition/complaint is filed ex officio or at the request of the person who considers that his/her rights have been infringed as a result of a conflict of interest. The petition is also lodged in case when the person who issued/adopted an administrative act or concluded a legal act in breach of the legal provisions on conflicts of interest shall no longer hold the respective office. This effect, however, does not refer to the legislative acts, other normative and legal acts. In addition to that, similar provisions are contained in section 56 of the Regulation. According to the rules mentioned above, after the act establishing the conflict of interest becomes definitive, the NIC shall refer the matter to the competent court for it to cancel the administrative act issued/approved, legal act concluded or decision made in violation of the legal provisions on conflicts of interest. The NIC shall also notify the competent bodies in order to attract the person to disciplinary responsibility or, where appropriate, with a view to termination of the mandate, employment relationships or service thereof.

Conclusions and recommendations The national legal framework contains provisions relating to the declaration of personal interests, as well as to the identification, treatment and resolution of the conflict of interest. Specifically, these concepts are covered by Law no. 16/2008 and NIC Regulation. The legal provisions define the basic notions, clarify the categories of declarants, and establish the personal interests’ declaration mechanism, as well as the procedure of collecting and filing declarations. At the same time, the national legal framework provides a mechanism for the resolution and declaration of the conflict of interests. In addition to that, a mechanism of control and sanction is established. However, in order to enhance the clarity and potential effectiveness of the rules, the current legal framework requires an essential improvement, the following being recommended: 

revise the NIC formation process. The NIC is a key authority in promoting and overseeing the compliance with the public service ethic. First of all, we note that the NIC collegiality is not justified. Or, starting from their duties, including the determination of irregularities in what regards the observance of the limitation periods, the NIC must be a body that can act with expedience. Secondly, the appointments of NIC members should not be subject to political negotiation, but rather to a long term policy in this area. In this regard, it would be more efficient for NIC to be uni-personally led by a chairman, who would be assisted by a deputy chairman. The NIC Chairman and Deputy Chairman should be appointed by the President of the Republic of Moldova, who, owing to his status and requirements imposed, is more distant from both the legislative and executive body. Eventually, the appointments could be preceded by a public competition, legal norms being necessary in this regard. In our opinion, this would ensure the probity and would enhance the credibility of the NIC;



exclude any duplication of institutional competences in the field covered. By way of example: the situations that cause the conflict of interest are the risk factors, in accordance with Article 4, paragraph a) of Law no. 271 of 18.12.2008 on the verification of the holders and candidates to public offices, the verification body in this respect being the Intelligence and Security Service, by virtue of Article 6 of the law cited above. Such duplication of powers is unacceptable;



streamline the provisions of Law no. 16/2008 and Law no. 1264/2002 in a single legal act, which would regulate both fields: declaration of personal interests, including the conflict of interest, as well as the declaration of incomes and property. The systematized legal act should provide for a single form of declaration of personal interests, income and property. Thus: it will avoid undue approach with different concepts, including the part related to the deadlines for submission; it will avoid the duplication of information required to be reported by the declarants; the resources will be saved, including human resources. The mechanism would be more effective, if the online filing of the declaration is applied by the declarants through a special secure automated information system. As a result, the process of declaring and control would become more economical and efficient, increasing NIC ability to check the information contained in the declarations;



review the notion of conflict of interest (Article 2 of Law no. 16/2008) so that it comprises safely all of the situations, including actual (current) conflict of interest. Where the conflict of interest is not defined in terms of the conflict between the public interest (as defined in Article 2 of Law no. 16/2008) and personal interest, the notion of public interest must be excluded;



review the list of subjects of declaration (Article 3 of Law no. 16/2008). By way of example: it is necessary to include in this list also the members of the Central Election Commission who are not working full-time. At the same time, it is necessary to clarify the concept of persons with control functions in the institutions within the State education system and the public health system (Article 3, paragraphs (1), subparagraph d) of Law no. 16/2008), a notion that confuses, is not defined and is not found in other laws;



complete the provisions with special rules that would focus on the identification, treatment and resolution of conflicts of interest in the case of persons with elective mandates. We refer to the members of the Parliament. These provisions could be similar to the rules of Article 21 of Law no. 436 of 28.12.2006 on local public administration, which limit the right to vote of the councilor if he/she is in a situation of conflict of interest;



streamline the control mechanism. Ex officio examination should be started by the NIC in case when the subjects who are obliged to file declarations did not file these within the period prescribed for this, and did not do so even after 30 working days following the date of expiry of the period when the declarations had to be submitted;



add special rules to the provisions that would cover the liability of the managers for inappropriate treatment or resolution of conflicts of interest declared by their subordinates. Although Law no. 16/2008 provides more powers for the managers in dealing with and solving the conflicts of interests of the subordinates, the law is deficient in the part pertaining to accountability;



complete the provisions with explicit rules on the disciplinary responsibility of persons responsible for collecting the declarations. The provisions of Article 59, paragraph (2) of Law no. 158/2008 are confuse, according to which the disciplinary sanctions shall apply within a period of maximum 6 months from the date of committing the offence, with the exception of disciplinary sanction for violation of legislation on the declaration of property and income and with respect to conflict of interest, to be applied within a period not exceeding 6 months from the date the act establishing the disciplinary offence becomes definitive. Or, these may not relate to the declarants who are subject to criminal or administrative sanctions for violations of the legal provisions relating to the conflict of interest. At the same time, the provisions of Article 59, paragraph (2) of Law no. 158/2008 may not relate to the persons responsible for collecting declarations, the NIC being unable to assess the disciplinary deviation made by them;



streamline the mechanism of administrative sanctions. The NIC shall be the only one empowered to establish and apply administrative sanctions for the violation of legal provisions. In this respect, any competences of NAC shall be excluded and the courts should only hold the competence to examine the complaints concerning the minutes/reports drawn up, as well as the sanctions imposed by the NIC. At the same time, it is necessary to supplement the Code of Administrative Offences with a provision that would make the local authorities and managers of public institutions involved, natural or legal persons obliged to disclose or submit the requested information, data, records and supporting documents to NIC accountable in case of failure to do so;



complete the Criminal Code with rules that would cover, in particular, the sanctioning of perjury in declarations about personal interests, income and property. However, the current rules from Article 3521 of the Criminal Code are less applicable to these kinds of declarations, the cited offence component having as qualifying element -the aim of perjury in declaration – “producing legal consequences”;



streamline the referral mechanism by the NIC to the court in order to cancel the administrative act issued/adopted, legal act concluded or decision made in violation of the legal provisions on the conflict of interest. In our opinion, the NIC should be able to refer the matter to the court as soon as it establishes a conflict of interest, so that they can ask the Court, as a measure of ensuring the action - the suspension for the duration of the process of administrative act/legal act/litigation decision proceedings. Otherwise, such acts and decisions shall continue to be enforceable and prejudice the public interest until the act establishing the conflict of interest becomes definitive, and court processes for this purpose may take years.

II. Civil servants about conflict of interest policies in public service (opinion poll) Transparency International – Moldova (TI – Moldova) conducted a survey of civil servants from 21 central public administration authorities1 (CPA) within the Project „Engaging Civil Society in Monitoring Conflict of Interest Policies” funded by the European Commission2. The purpose of the survey is to analyze how the CPAs apply a number of anti-corruption policies, including: addressing conflicts of interest, promoting ethical conduct, meritbased promotion of staff, operation of the petition system and hot-lines. The survey analysed the CPA employee familiarity with the legal framework in the field (in particular the Law no. 16/2008 on Conflict of Interest and Law no.25/2008 on the Civil Servants’ Code of Conduct); practice of declaring personal interests and conflicts of interest (CI); respondents opinions vis-a- vis some operational aspects of the institution they work for: subdivisions with a high risk of CI occurrence, objectivity and transparency of staff hiring/promotion process, existence of corruption, existence of some unfair policies in the authorities activity, their politicization; willingness of employees to denounce corruption, etc. In addition to that, given TIMoldova conducting surveys related to the CI treatment policy in previous years, including 2012 3, changes in the implementation of this policy have been analysed. The interviews were based on a questionnaire that gave the respondents the opportunity to choose the correct version of the answer from several options, as well as to express their views/suggestions on anti-corruption policies applied. During the survey, 769 people were interviewed or about 30 percent of the total employees of the stated authorities4. Respondents were selected from the lists of CPA staff in the presence of the representatives of human resources departments, with a particular step in order to ensure the representativeness of the survey. The survey was conducted during November – December 2013. Public authority

Number of interviewed Share in total staff, % people

Ministry of Economy

Ministry of Finance

Main State Tax Inspectorate

Customs Service (Central Apparatus)

Customs Service (Chisinau Customs Office)

Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Internal Affairs

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration

Ministry of Defense

Ministry of Regional Development and Construction

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry

Ministry of Transport. and Road Infrastructure

Ministry of Economy (MEC); Ministry of Finance (MF); Main State Tax Inspectorate (MSTI); Customs Service, Central Apparatus(SV AC); Customs Service, Chisinau Customs Office (SV BV Ch); Ministry of Justice (MJ); Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA); Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration (MFAEI); Ministry of Defense (MD); Ministry of Regional Development and Construction (MRDC); Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI); Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure (MTRI); Ministry of Environment (ME); Ministry of Education (MEd); Ministry of Culture (MC); Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family (MLSPF); Ministry of Health (MH); Ministry of Information Technology and Communications (MITC); Ministry of Youth and Sport (MYS); Agency for Land Relations and Cadaster (ALRC); National Anti-corruption Center (NAC). 2 Project is implemented by TI-Moldova in partnership with NGOs in four countries: Armenia, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Ukraine. 3 Transparency International – Moldova, Results of civil servants survey on the implementation of conflict of interest policies in central public authorities, 2013, – http://www.transparency.md/content/blogcategory/16/48/lang,ro/ 4 Data on the personnel were provided by the representatives of the CPAs.

Ministry of Environment

Ministry of Education

Ministry of Culture

Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family

Ministry of Health

Ministry of Information technology and Communications

Ministry of Youth and Sport

Agency for Land Relations and Cadaster

National Anti-Corruption Centre (Central Apparatus)

Total

769

The results of the survey are the following5:

I. Familiarity with the provisions of Law no.16/2008 on Conflict of Interest What does „conflict of interests’ in public sector” mean? Share of respondents who indicated the correct response option was on average 92% and increased slightly (by about 4 percentage points (pp) compared to 2012.

APC profile information is reflected in the Annexes.

Do you think conflict of interests’ is corruption? Only one third of respondents answered the question correctly, their share increased compared to 2012 by about 4 percentage points. It is noteworthy that nearly 60% of respondents confuse CI with corruption. Do you think conflict of interests’ is corruption? Do not know 11%

No 32%

Yes 57%

Please give an example of personal interests As in previous years' surveys, a negative interpretation of the term „personal interest” is maintained, most respondents citing as examples of personal interests the violations of restrictions and incompatibilities, CI situations, as well as eventual cases of corruption, e.g.:  Use of the official car by the civil servant for personal purposes, use of the office equipment for private purposes;  The civil servant has a close relative under subordination;  criminal investigation officer is a relative to the person against whom a criminal proceeding was filed;  civil servant issues the authorization to a company, where he/she is a founder;  tax inspector detects irregularities in the company of his wife and conceals them;  civil servant concludes contracts with firms belonging to close relatives;  inspector notifies a close person about conducting an unannounced inspection;  civil servant accepts a reward/gift from the client.

Acceptability of the breach of restrictions/incompatibilities related t work in public service Compared to 2012, the share of respondents who consider unacceptable any violation of the restrictions and prohibitions established by law has increased significantly. An exception remains the post-employment restriction, about 30% of respondents considered acceptable this breach.

Do you think a public servant has the right to take a decision being in a conflict of interest situation? The vast majority of respondents (85%) believe it is correct that the civil servant is not entitled to make decisions in the situation of CI.

Ways of solving a conflict of interests situation? Being asked to choose the right option for resolving situations of conflict of interests, most of the interviewees chose the optimal solution, in particular: Example of situations

Selected option

% resp.

An inspector finds out that he/she will have to control a company conducted by his/her relative

the inspector will be substituted by another inspector to control this company

In local elections a person whose spouse is working as accountant in the City Hall was elected as Mayor

the spouse of the mayor will resign from the position in the city hall.

A Customâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s officer finds out that he has to inspect a track (car) driven by his brother

the Customs officer will be replaced in this control by another officer

In the Staff Evaluation Commission there is a request for promotion from one of the commissionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s members.

the public servant will not participate in this meeting of the commission

Respondents who correctly indicated the sanction provided by law for non-submission of declaration on personal interests, non-declaring CI and false statements. Although the average share of respondents who indicated the correct liability for this violation is low, this share grew compared to 20126, including thanks to publicizing the sanctions imposed by the National Integrity Commission in 2013.

How would you assess your knowledge about the treatment of conflict of interests situations? (self-assessment of the respondents on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means „I do not know anything at all”, 10 – „I know perfectly well”). The average self-assessment per CPA is of 7 points, similar to the situation of 2012.

In 2012, about 26% of respondents correctly indicated the sanctions for non-submission of personal interest, income and property declarations, and 17% - for failure to declare conflicts of interest.

II. Practice of filing declarations of personal interests and reporting on conflict of interest Did you file a declaration of personal interests in 2013? 84% of respondents say they have filed declarations of personal interests in 2013, which is by about 25 pp more than in 2012.

If you did file a declaration of personal interests, what kind of declaration was that?

Whom did you file your declaration of interests with? (% of respondents who filed the declaration of interest) The majority of respondents (about 80%) have filed the declaration of personal interests to the person in charge for collecting the declarations of interests, according to the legislation, their share having increased with 21 pp compared to 2012.

Upon submitting your declaration of personal interests, have you been given a document confirming receipt of your declaration? Did you have to sign in a register? (% of respondents who filed the declaration of interest) The majority of respondents who declared their personal interests said they received a confirmation document (78%) and signed in the Register of Declarations (77%), their share having increased considerably compared to 2012 (with 24 pp and 13 pp respectively).

Did you ever have difficulties in filling in a declaration of this kind?

If YES, what were the problems/difficulties? 1/5 of respondents stating that they faced problems in filling in the declarations of interest specified them. Based on what was stated, we could observe that some respondents confused the declaration of interest with the declaration of income and property, because they invoked difficulties related to filling in the declarations of income and property. Reporting conflicts of interests in 2013 88% of respondents mentioned that they did not report any conflict of interest in 2013, the situation being similar to 2012.

What difficulties have been faced when reporting conflicts of interest? The Law on conflict of interest does not provide for a model report/declaration on conflict of interest, the requirements towards document content being expressly established in Article 9 of the cited law. Based on the respondents' answers, we can assume that some confused reporting on conflicts of interest with the declaration of personal interests. Does your job description include the mandatory requirement to declare conflicts of interests?

In your opinion, in which subdivision of your institution the risks of conflict of interests’ are the highest? The respondents, depending on the CPA, have invoked most frequently the following subdivisions:  ALRC: Land and Soil Protection Department, Agency Management, Real Estate Division;  NAC: General Directorate for Combating Corruption, Money Laundering Prevention and Combating Service;  MSTI: Tax Compliance General Directorate, Management, Large Taxpayers Unit, Economic and Public Procurement Department;  MD: Economic and Financial Department, Human resource Management Department, Inspection Department;  MFAEI: Ministry management, Ministers Office, Human Resources, Management and Logistics Department;  MIA: Administration and Development Policies Department, General Human Resources Department, General Legal Department;  MAFI: General Legal Department, Management, Finance and Budget Department;  MC: Directorate for cultural heritage and visual arts, Legal Department, Department of Professional Art, Art Education and Cultural Industries, Finance and Accounting Department;

            

MRDC: Management, Architecture, projection, Urbanism and Territorial Development Department, General Regional Development Department, Financial Department; MEC: Administration Policies and Public Property Privatization Department, Management, General Department of Industrial and Competitiion Policies; MED: Ministry’s Management, General Economic and Financial Department, Human resources Department; MF: Management, State Treasury, Legal Department; ME: Finance and Accounting Department, Legal Department, Minister’s Office, Ministry’s management; MJ: Non-commercial Organizations Department, Apostil Department, Notary Department; MLSPF: Economic and Financial Department, Humanitarian Aid Division, Human Resource Division; MH: Management, Drugs and Medical Equipment Department, Medical Staff Management Department; MICT: Legal Department, Minister’s Office, Finance and Accounting Department; MTRI: Road Transport Department, Legal Department, Management; MYS: Professional Sport Department, Youth Programs Department, Management, Department of Sport Institutions and Sport for All; Customs Service Headquarters: Goods Valuation and Classification Department, Human Resources Department; Chisinau Customs Office: Management, Customs Revenues and Valuation Department, 3 Internal Chisinau Customs Posts (industrial), 4 Internal Chisinau Customs Posts (Cricova).

Are you aware of any case of conflict of interests that took place in 2013 in your institution? % of total respondents

Examples of conflict of interest situations that took place in CPA in 2013. Some respondents indicated concrete cases of conflicts of interest and how these were resolved (i.e., head of customs post had a son under his/her direct subordination, the son was transferred), others specified the areas where there were conflicts of interest (employment, public procurement, etc.). Among the examples, there are also cases of making decision /operations in a conflict of interest case, breach of incompatibilities, as well as eventual cases of corruption (e.g., bribery for the transfer of a prisoner from a foreign country into the Republic of Moldova).

Are there any post-employment restrictions for the personnel working for your institutions? % of total respondents

What are the post-employment restrictions for the employees of your institution? The examples invoked by the respondents show that, with some exceptions, the employees are not aware of this kind of restrictions. Examples of violations of post-employment restrictions by former employees of the institution. These examples confirm that the respondents do not know the specifics of these restrictions, signaling about other possible deviations: employment of people who do not have enough working experience / do not speak foreign languages; employment following preliminary agreements; restoring in office the people who previously took bribes etc. III. Policies on ethical norms promotion, staff promotion, operation of the petition system, hot-lines Is there a Code of Conduct/Ethics for public servants?

Are you aware about any violations of the Code of Conduct/Ethics in your isntituion in 2013?

Were the staff members informed on the measure taken with regard to those who violated the Code of Conduct?

Is there in your institution a subdivision or person in charge of supervising the Code of Conduct, conflict of interest, declaration of income and assets?

In 2013, did you attend any anti-corruption training/ seminar (ethics in public service, conflicts of interest, declaration of income and assets)?

Are you aware of the staff evaluation/promotion procedure?

Do you consider the staff evaluation procedure transparent and objective?

Are there cases in your institution when staff members are hired based on family and friendship relations?

Are there cases when staff members are promoted without deserving it/not based on merits?

Are there cases in the institution when staff members abuse their position for personal gain?

Are there cases when pressure is made on the staff members to take a decision/solve a problem in someoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interests?

Do you consider incorrect any policies/practices of your institutions? 14% of respondents noted that certain policies promoted by the institution are incorrect (with about 3 percentage points less than in 2012), these being blamed usually for insufficient salaries, poor endowment and personnel policy issues (hiring, promotion). However, some respondents mentioned in this context the low authorities' insistence in amending the legislation to combat corruption, insufficient public education activities about the dangers of corruption (NAC), fiscal policy based, in particular, on the taxpayers control, pressure and fines (MSTI), non-transparency of the public procurements, use of the National Ecological Fund (ME); promotion of persons without merit and before the established period of time (SV Ap Central).

Respondents who consider incorrect certain policies in institution, %

100 80

MMPSF

MED

MTID

Media

15 3

MAIA

MAEIE

SV BVCh

SVAp Central

IFPS

CNA

ARFC

MTIC

9 MAI

12 MJ

2 MEC

MDRC

MTS

What would you suggest to improve the working climate in your institution? Along with traditional suggestions to increase wages and create better working conditions, the respondents proposed: increasing the transparency of public authorities activity; improve internal and external communication; effective interaction between management and subordinates; de-bureaucratization of work; establishing clear rules to promote the staff and promoting the merit-based practice; organizing seminars and trainings for employees. Do you think there is corruption in your institution? 29% of respondents mentioned that there is corruption within the institution they are working for, their share being reduced with 10 pp compared to 2012.

If yes, during the last 12 months, corruption in your institutionâ&#x20AC;Ś Most of the respondents believe that over the last 12 months, corruption in the institution in which they work has declined, the share of people sharing this opinion increased by about 5 percentage points as compared to 2012.

If you were aware of a case of corruption in your institution, would you report it? Approximately two thirds of the respondents are willing to denounce corruption, their share decreased by about 6 pp compared to 2012. Half of those who would not report cases of corruption say that they would not do so because it would only create problems to them.

If no, why?

What should be, in your opinion, the monthly wage of the staff members of your institution to avoid the temptation of accepting unofficial payments? The average calculated for the respective categories of civil servants are as follows: ordinary civil servant - 480 Euro, Head of Department - 660 Euro and Minister/Director â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1,000 Euro. The average values for the first two categories of civil servants remained the same as in 2012, and for the Minister/Director increased by about 10%.

Which branch of the state power is the most corrupt, in your opinion?

Do you consider the institution you work for is politicized?

Do you think that if the Minister/Director and Vice-Minister/Vice-Director of your institution would be from different political parties, the politisation problem would be solved?

Is there a subdivision in your institution carrying out the internal audit?

Who in your institution is responsible for: collecting statements of income and assets, collecting declarations of personal interest, petition system operation?

Do you know the telephone number of the hot-line of the institution you are working for?

Findings Although there is much progress in terms of familiarity/awareness of CPA employees with the legal framework on conflicts of interest, practice of filing declarations of personal interests, personnel management, perception by the respondents of the existence of corruption within the CPAs, efforts undertaken by the authorities in this context are insufficient, especially in terms of preventing the conflicts of interest, information about how to report these cases, authoritiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; internal oversight of observing restrictions and incompatibilities by employees.

Awareness about the legal framework. In general, there is a positive trend in familiarizing the civil servants with the legal framework on handling conflicts of interest. Thus, 92 % of respondents indicated the correct version of the notion of “conflict of interest” , their share increased slightly compared to 2012. A vast majority of respondents (85%) believe it is correct that the civil servants are not entitled to make decisions in situations of CI. Compared to 2012, the share of respondents who consider unacceptable any violation of the restrictions and prohibitions established by law has increased significantly, except for only the post-employment restrictions. The share of respondents who indicated the correct liability for failure to file declarations of personal interests, failure to report conflicts of interest and false statements is quite low, but it increased compared to 2012 7, including as a result of the publicizing the sanctions applied by the National Integrity Commission in 2013. At the same time, as in previous years, a negative interpretation of the term of “personal interest” is maintained, most respondents citing as examples of personal interests the violations of restrictions and incompatibilities, CI situations, as well as eventual cases of corruption. The percentage of respondents that confuse CI with corruption is high (about 60%). The practice of filing declarations of personal interests. There are many positive points in this regard. The vast majority of respondents (84 %) noted that they have filed declarations of personal interests in 2013, their share increased significantly (by 25 pp) compared to 2012. Nearly 80 % of respondents claim to have filed the declaration with the person in charge of their collection (just as the law requires) – with 21 pp more than in 2012. Nevertheless, about 20 % say they have filed declaration of personal interest with other people than those provided for in the law (head of the institution or head of department/division) or do not remember who they filed the declaration with. The vast majority of respondents who declared their personal interests noted that they received a certificate attesting the submission of the declaration (78%) and signed in the register of declarations (77 %) , their share increased significantly compared to 2012 (with 24 and 13 percentage points pp respectively). However, some respondents confused the declarations of personal interest with the declaration of income and assets: being summoned to indicate the difficulties in filling in the declarations of personal interest, most of those who indicated them made reference to problems related to filling in the income and assets declaration (deficiencies in collecting information, unclear indication of property/assets value, etc.). Handling conflicts of interest. The public authorities do not give enough attention to this issue: nearly 37 % of respondents noted that their job description does not provide for any requirements about the obligation to declare personal interests and conflicts of interest. The vast majority of respondents (88 %) noted that they did not report any conflicts of interest in 2013, similar to 2012. Only 7 % say they have reported conflicts of interest, invoking usually among the reporting problems “lack of clarity in the declaration text”, “difficulties related to the questions content”, “problems in filling in the form”. Since the reporting of conflicts of interest is done in a free-form and is not based on a particular form/template, we might conclude that the respondents confuse reporting on conflicts of interest with the declaration of interests. In addition to that, most of the respondents ( 89 %) say they do not know about any conflicts of interest, which have occurred in the institution they work for in 2013. Those who referred to conflicts of interest in 2013, cited cases of conflicts of interest that were resolved within the institutions, as well as eventual cases of abuse in office, violation of restrictions in the hierarchy of public office, making decisions in situations of conflict of interest, which in all likelihood were not reported and resolved. Among the subdivisions with increased risk of occurrence of conflicts of interest, the authorities management, financial and economic departments, legal departments are frequently indicated. Although the legislation establishes post-employment restrictions (restrictions of terminating the activity)8, about 74% of respondents claim that there are no such restrictions for the staff of the institution (similar to the situation in 2012). From the examples put forward by respondents (“seniority”, “non-disclosure of confidential information”, “existence of a criminal record”, “we have no right to hold a position in another institution”, “cummulation of the main activity with other remunerated activity, except for the teaching activity”, etc.) we may conclude that the employees typically are not familiar with this kind of restrictions. 7

In 2012, about 26% of respondents indicated correctly the sanctions for failure to file the declaration of personal interest and declaration of income and assets, and respectively 17% - for failure to declare the conflicts of interest. 8 Article 20 of Law no. 16/2008.

Opinions regarding the human resources management, any eventual shortcomings in the implementation of internal policies. In general, the situation with regard to hiring, promoting and rewarding the staff of CPAs, employees non-discrimination for various reasons (national, political, gender) continues to improve. However, there are several problems in this regard:    

28% of respondents consider that the procedure of staff evaluation is not objective and transparent, 17% of interviewees noted that there is no information about this procedure; 33% of respondents say that there are cases in the institution when people are hired based on family and friendship relations; 31% of respondents note the existence of cases of staff promotion and rewarding not based on merits; 22% of respondents consider that the institutions have cases when the employees use their official position for personal purposes.

About 14 % of respondents noted that some policies promoted by the institution are incorrect (with 3 percentage points less than in 2012), usually being blamed for low wages, unsatisfactory endowment and personnel policy issues (hiring, promotion). In this context, some of the respondents mentioned the low authorities' insistence on amending the legislation to combat corruption, insufficient public education activities about the dangers of corruption (NAC), fiscal policy based, in particular, on the taxpayers control, pressure and fines (MSTI), nontransparency of the public procurements, use of the National Ecological Fund (ME); promotion of persons without merit and before the established period of time, tolerance for the family relations between the customs officers and customs brokers (CS Ap Central). The existence of corruption within the CPAs, availability to denounce corruption cases. 29 % of respondents claim that there is corruption in the institution where they work, their share being reduced by 10 pp compared to 2012. The largest part of those who believe that there is corruption in the institution noted that in the last 12 months, this phenomenon has decreased (42 %), the share of people who support this idea increased by about 5 percentage points as compared to 2012. About two thirds of respondents are willing to denounce corruption cases, still their share has decreased by about 6 pp compared to 2012 Recommendations -

Continuous familiarization of the CPAs staff with regard to the provisions of the legal framework on handling conflicts of interest, emphasizing the aspects of personal interest, incompatibilities and restrictions, including post-employment and reporting conflicts of interest;

Drawing attention of the CPAs employees about the mandatory reporting of conflicts of interest, developing the guidelines for reporting, documenting and resolving conflicts of interest and their implementation;

Strengthening the CPAs capacities of internal monitoring of o with thef the observance of restrictions and incompatibilities, reporting conflicts of interest, by involving the security structures in the process;

Drawing the attention of the CPAs on situations of conflict of interest raised by the respondents, taking into consideration the views of respondents on incorrect policies promoted within the CPAs and proposals for improving the work environment;

Making the personnel hiring, evaluation, promotion and rewarding procedures transparent by informing the employees about the content and compliance with these procedures.

III. The practices of applying conflict of interestsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; policy in public service (central public institutions ranking) The goal of monitoring is to analyze the implementation of policy regarding the handling of conflicts of interest, and on the promotion of ethical standards in 20 central public administration authorities (CPAs),9 from the perspective of the normative acts regulating this area, recognizing potential problems in policy implementation, and formulating proposals for its improvement. The applicable legal framework: Law no.16-XVI of 15.02.2008 on the conflict of interest (Law 16/2008), Law no. 25 of 22.02.2008 on the Code of Conduct for Civil Servants (Law no. 25/2008) Government Decision no.134 of 22.02.2013 on establishing the permissible value of symbolic gifts, courtesy or protocol related gifts (GD 134/2013). Methodology: the written request of information from monitored CPAs (reference period: 01.01.2013 31.10.2013) and NIC (the year 2013). Compare the NIC information with the information provided by the monitored CPAs. Depending on the responses received, a summary table was inserted into the profile of each CPA that includes a description of the current state of policy10 implementation, various findings/issues, and proposals on improving the situation. Following the analysis, each CPA was assigned a score (on a scale from 0 to 4)11 based on its performance, and a ranking of all CPAs was compiled. Additionally, because the policy in question was monitored earlier in 2012, this report contains an analysis of changes in policy application from 2012 to 2013. Implementation within the authorities. Monitoring results show that most CPAs made efforts to apply and improve their policy regarding the handling conflicts of interest and the promotion of ethical standards. In this context, the NAC and MJ performed the best, the worst performing agencies being the MIA and MLSPF. Conflict of Interests and Ethics 4,0 3,6 3,5

3,3 3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0

3,0

2,8 2,7

2,5

2,4 2,3

2,3 2,0 2,0 2,0

2,0

1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,4 1,4

1,5 1,0 0,5

Average

MLSPF

MIA

MED

MRDC

MITC

MEAEI

MYS

MAFI

ALC

MEC

MTRI

ISFI

NAC

0,0

Ministry of Economy (MEC); Ministry of Finance (MF); Main State Tax Inspectorate (MSFI); Customs Service (Central Apparatus (SV AC); Customs Service, Chisinau Customs Office (CS BV Ch); Ministry of Justice (MJ); Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA); Ministry of External Affairs and European Integration (MEAEI); Ministry of Defense (MD); Ministry of Regional Development and Construction (MRDC); Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI); Ministry of Transport and Road Infrastructure (MTRI); Ministry of Environment (ME); Ministry of Education (MED); Ministry of Culture (MC); Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family (MLSPF); Ministry of Health (MH); Ministry of Information Technology and Communications (MITC); Ministry of Youth and Sport (MYS); Agency for Land Relations and Cadaster (ALC); National Anti-corruption Center (NAC). 10 The inputs in the summary tables were taken from the CPAs letters addressed to the authors. 11 Where 0 means that CPA did not apply the anti-corruption policy / did not offer data that would confirm the policy application; and 4 - CPA has applied the policy according to the legal provisions.

Since this policy was monitored in 2012, it should be noted that some CPAs advanced in their ability to implement policy (MEC, MD, NAC, MF, ME, MFAEI, MC), while others (MRDC, MLSPF) have regressed, and others have seen little to no change12. The Excels matrix with the evaluation of each ministry can be seen in the Annex to this report. The situation regarding the measures applied is as follows. Filing declarations of personal interests (DPI) Generally, the monitored CPAs have undertaken measures to ensure the submission of declarations of personal interest (DPI) by officials and dignitaries. It should be noted that all authorities have communicated information about filing declarations and indicated the number of declarants (for comparison: in 2012, 85% of CPAs communicated information about the DPI submission, one third of which, however, did not indicate the number of declarants). The information provided by CPAs shows that those responsible for the collection of these declarations ensure that records are kept regarding these DPIs, as well as their further transmission to the NIC. The results of the survey conducted among civil servants by TI-Moldova in 201313 attest to positive moments in filing the DPI. The absolute majority of respondents (84%) noted that they filed a DPI in 2013, which increased by 24 percentage points compared to 2012. In addition, the majority of those who filed a declaration stated that they received a conformation document and signed the Registry of Declarations. This increased considerably compared to 2012. With regards to the timeliness of DPI submission, 65% of CPAs mentioned that all civil servants filed their declarations in due time, while only 35% of authorities noted irregularities (MEAEI, MAFI, MED, MH, MSTI, MD, and ALC). According to the laws regarding conflict of interest14, however, authorities should have reported any failure in the submission of declarations to the NIC. We can assume, from the above results, that not all CPAs complied with this law. It appears that only MSTI reported to the NIC about a failure in submissions: “[the] NIC was informed that one tax officer has not filed the declaration ...” Other authorities, in all likelihood, did not inform the NIC, and only informed the declarants: “people were warned about the obligation to respect the deadline for filing the declarations” (MEd); “People have been warned that they will be liable under the law in force” (MH); “People who have not filed their declarations of personal interests or have filed them in violation of the terms set were informed about the legislation provisions” (MLSPF); “Intranet messages were sent out about the fact that the employees are to submit declarations of personal interests and that they are going to be sanctioned by NIC” (MFAEI); “People who have not filed their declarations in due time were additionally called and informed about the urgent need to file the respective declarations” (MAFI)15. According to the information received from the CPAs, we can infer that many still face difficulties in collecting DPIs. For example, the MED said that they cannot provide the number of employees in managerial and control positions within the state educational institutions (to file the DPI) due to the confusing interpretation of the term “control positions” in the legislation, and because their declarations are filed through local authorities. MIA did not provide conclusive data about DPI submission, most likely due to a large number of employees, the probable lack of an internal mechanism for collecting and processing data on filed declarations, and the overlap of the MIA institutional reorganization process and annual filing of declarations. 12

Developments were assessed based on comparable indicators of 2013 and 2012: filing declarations on the personal interests, reporting conflicts of interest, familiarization of the employees with the legislation provisions, the existence of notifications on violation of the code of conduct and undertaking the necessary measures. (Note - in 2013, a new indicator related to the establishment of a Gift Record Commission within the CPAs, recording and publication of the list of gifts reported by officials was introduced). 13 TI-Moldova, Results of the survey for civil servants with regard to the application of anti-corruption policies within the CPAs, 2014, http://www.transparency.md/Docs/Rezultatele%20sondajului%20CI%20in%20APC%202013%20%20final.pdf 14 Article 10 (2) of the law. 15 See the answers of the respective authorities in the summary tables.

It was difficult to compare the CPAs’ information about the filed declarations with the NIC’s respective data because the Commission could only provide an approximate number of declarants, due to the lack of automated records. According to the NIC, the establishment of an internal database to keep record of the declarations at the beginning of 2013 was virtually impossible, due to lack of equipment and insufficient human resources. It should be noted that the information provided by NAC, MEC, MLSPF, MTIC, MYS, MAFI, MD, ME on initial and annual declarations corresponded to the NIC data. Reporting conflicts of interest (CI) Most of the CPAs monitored (75%) reported that civil servants did not report any conflicts of interest during the reference period, while three authorities (CS, NAC and ALC) reported about such cases, and two authorities (MIA MLSPF) did not answer the question. For comparison - in 2012, none of the CPAs provided any information about the reporting of conflicts of interest by civil servants. In 2013, the number of conflicts of interest reported was also incredibly low: 4 cases amongst 20 CPAs. The CPAs’ information about declared and resolved conflicts of interest in 2013 is presented in the following table (in the wording of the authorities). CPA

Short description of the CI

Person that examined and solved the CI

CI settlement procedure

NAC, 2 pers.

CI declared by a deputy director of the NAC in the process of examining and signing a document.

Situation was coordinated by the institution’s director.

CI declared by a criminal investigation officer who found that he is in a family relationship with one of the persons mentioned in a case under his investigation.

Management of the General Department for Fight against Corruption.

The document was sent for examination and signature to another deputy director.

CS, 1 pers.

A situation of related person subordination was reported.

ALC, 1 pers.

The Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the State Enterprise “IPOT”, willing to participate in a competition for the position of enterprise administrator, submitted a letter to the founder that he is in a conflict of interest

Human Resources Division at the indication of the General Director. Avoided answer

The officer was removed from the examination of these cases. The subordinated person was transferred to another position without any conflict of interest. Avoided answer

Additionally, according to the TI-Moldova survey of civil servants conducted in 2013, most of the respondents noted that they had not declared any CI. At the same time, while being asked to report the existence of CI situations within the institution they work for, some respondents cited possible violations of interdictions, restrictions, and decision-making in CI situations, which in all likelihood have not been reported16. It should be noted, however, that a number of CPAs (NAC, CS, MIA, MH, MAFI, MEC, MED, and MYS17) have identified cases of failure to report CI by employees, and have notified the NIC about this. Based on these complaints, the NIC initiated seven controls on the possible violations of restrictions, various incompatibilities, and the failure to declare the conflicts of interest within the CPAs monitored, including the MF, MH, MED, ME, MAFI, and MEC. As a result of these controls, the NIC identified conflicts of interest and instructed the NAC on how to apply administrative sanctions (exception - deviations from MED). It is noteworthy that in half of such cases, the NIC’s decisions were contested. On 25.04.2014, the situation of these cases was as follows18:

www.transparency.md/Docs/Rezultatele%20sondajului%20CI%20in%20APC%202013%20%20final.pdf. Among the examples, there were presented cases of hiring relatives without a contest, the activity of a civil servant being under the direct supervision of a relative, making decision on public procurement in favor of a related company, etc. 17 Answer of NIC no. 03139 of 05.02.2014 at the request of information on behalf of TI-Moldova. 18 Additional information provided by NIC at the request of TI-Moldova.

MF: a conflict of interest was established at the Ministry of Finance19, the NAC was informed in order to apply administrative sanctions (NIC decision was appealed in the court); - MH: conflicts of interest were established in case of two officers from the ministry20, NAC was informed (in both cases, the NIC decisions were appealed); - MED: a conflict of interest was established in the case of the former minister of education21 (NIC decision was appealed in court, the case is ongoing); - MAFI: a conflict of interest was established in relation to one of the officials22, NAC was informed in order to apply administrative sanctions; - MEC: a conflict of interest was established in relation to the Director of the Energy Efficiency Agency23, NAC was informed in order to apply administrative sanctions; - ME: the violations of the legal regime of the conflict of interest identified in relation to the former deputy minister24. According to NIC, the violations were committed before 01.03.2012 (date of entry into force of the Law on the NIC), due to this, the legal competences of NIC could not be extended over these violations. According to the NIC report for 2013, the Commission initiated 120 controls targeting people from the central and local public administration authorities, and more than half of the cases were focused on potential conflicts of interest and incompatibilities25. The controls were largely initiated based on the findings of investigative journalists, with NGOs confirming the widespread practice of decision-making in conflict of interest situations and incompatibilities. This means that the public authorities, especially the CPAs, do not have sufficient measures to identify and prevent conflicts of interest, and can only do so by eventually engaging the control / internal audit subdivisions. -

It should be noted that the MEC, NAC, CS have developed and applied internal documents governing reports and documentation/evidence on conflicts of interest. According to MEC, conflicts of interest are identified by internal auditors and during audit missions at MEC subdivisions subsidiaries. The NAC, by order no. 12 of 23.01.2013 on approval of the instruction on investigations as part of disciplinary proceedings, Human Resources and Security General Department is responsible for investigating CI cases detected among employees. In the case of SV, this process is regulated by Order no. 345-D of 05/07/2013 of the Managing Director regarding the identification of conflicts of interest. However, these documents were not found on either the CS or NAC websites; these documents would, however, be useful to other CPAs to enable them to share information regarding CI cases, and proceeding investigations. Employees’ familiarization with the provisions of the Law on Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct for civil servants The monitored CPAs, except for MRDC and MIA, have been informed regarding the measures which aim tomake civil servants more aware about the above mentioned laws. These measures consist of internal training, especially for new civil servants on legislation provisions, and the dissemination of promotional materials. In some CPAs, the civil servants also were trained at the Academy of Public Administration. While during recent years, there has been a positive trend in making civil servants aware of legal provisions for handling the conflicts of interest, the level of familiarization amongst such civil servants remains drastically 19

NIC found that the Minister of Finance, Anatol Arapu, violated the interdiction to use the public property goods for personal purposes. In the first case (Minister of Health, Andrei Usatîi), the NIC found that the minister, by the reorganization order of 3 hospitals, created favorable conditions for their administration (after the finalization of the mandate, the minister is entitled to return to his previous position of head physician in one of the hospitals). In the second case, the NIC found that the deputy minister Octavian Grama participated in making the decision on including the products of a firm, which representative office in Moldova was headed by his wife, in the list of medicines compensated by the state. 21 NIC established that the former minister, Mihail Şleahtiţchi, made a decision in favor of an organization, where he is a founder (he authorized the organization to endorse plans, programs for continuous professional training for adults). 22 NIC established that Alexandru Ciobanu facilitated the procedure of issuing the phyto-sanitary certificate to a company, where he was a founder. 23 According to NIC, Mihail Stratan participated in the public tender and identified as winner his own company. 24 According to NIC, former minister of environment, Jolondcovschi Alexandru, participated as a member of the Board of Directors of the National Ecological Fund when making decision on allocation of funds to the entities led by him. 25 NIC, Activity Report for 2013, http://www.cni.md/Upload/Raport_final_2013_ro.pdf 20

insufficient. According to the civil servants survey conducted by TI-Moldova in 2013, a large number of interviewees have a negative impression of the definition of “personal interest,” citing as examples cases of restrictions, violation of incompatibilities, and eventual cases of corruption. More than half of the respondents confused conflicts of interest with corruption, and a number of respondents who are aware of the sanctions for violation of the law on conflicts of interest is low. Often, the respondents confused the income and assets declaration with the personal interest declaration, and the personal interest declaration with the income and assets declaration. About one third of the interviewed civil servants said they participated in training on handling conflicts of interest, and declaration of income and assets26. According to the answers of some CPAs at the request of information on behalf of TI-Moldova, we may conclude that the authors confuse the personal interest declaration with reporting conflicts of interest (e.g. the letter of the Customs Service states that ‟there were hired or appointed 367 civil servants, all of them filed declarations on conflicts of interest”). In this context, it should be noted that some CPAs request organized seminars by the NIC on filing personal interest declarations, income and assets declaration, and seek to create a special area for Questions and Answers on the NIC’s website, which would enable the CPAs to receive guidance on CI procedures, and exchange information online about filing personal interest declarations and reports on. Existence of information/complaints on violation of rules of conduct 70% of CPAs reported that they received complaints about violations of the Code of Conduct by employees of the institution, 20% (ME, NAC, MSTI, CS) confirmed that they received complaints, and the MRDC and MIA did not provide any answer. The results of the civil servants survey conducted by TI-Moldova in 2013 confirm the following data: 16% of respondents said there were violations of the Code of Conduct (including CS - 48% of respondents, NAC - 33%, MD - 30 % ME - 29%). It should be mentioned that only 30% of all respondents said they had been informed about violations of the Code of Conduct and the measures taken 27. The information about complaints concerning violations of the Code of Conduct and the measures taken are summarized in the following table. It is noteworthy that, as in the previous year, the CPAs have not published this data, at least not on their respective websites. CPA ME

Number of complaints received 3 calls from employees of the ME.

Type of violations established Recorded violations: actions that damage the prestige and image of the authority, neglect and delay in carrying out the work and superiors indications.

Sanctions applied 3 sanctions were applied in the form of reprimand and warning. The sanctions were not challenged.

MSTI

101 complaints about the illegal actions of the tax officials (no petitions have been received from the employees).

Out of the total number of complaints, 39 were not confirmed, 59 were confirmed, 3 are pending. The materials were submitted to the disciplinary committees for review, according to the competence.

29 people have been sanctioned (warning, reprimand, severe reprimand). Three sanctions were challenged (appeals are still pending).

77 written complaints and 48 complaints were received via the hot-line.

92 investigations were completed, where violations of the Code of Conduct were identified. Violations fall under Article 11 and 13 of GD no. 456 of 27.07.2009 on the Code of Conduct of the customs officers.

324 sanctions were applied (observations – 205; reprimand - 69; severe reprimand - 35; retro-gradation in position - 1; dismissals - 14. No summons to court have been received to contest the sanctions.

NAC

65 notifications about the violation of professional obligations, office discipline and professional conduct have been received: - Petitions, notifications – 34; - Communications via the hot-line or dedicated phone lines l – 5; - reports of the employees – 17; - other information – 9.

36 investigations were initiated, 5 disciplinary procedures were launched (committing material errors in handling the criminal case, delay in prosecution procedure, improper behavior in the society, superficial examination of the materials, failure to observe secret and personal information.

4 employees sanctioned disciplinary, (reprimand – 1; warning – 3). No contestations were received.

26 27

www.transparency.md/Docs/Rezultatele%20sondajului%20CI%20in%20APC%202013%20%20final.pdf www.transparency.md/Docs/Rezultatele%20sondajului%20CI%20in%20APC%202013%20%20final.pdf

Establishment of commissions for keeping record and valuation of gifts, gifts registry maintenance, publication of the list of gifts According to GD 134/2013 on the establishment of the value of permissible symbolic gifts, such as those provided as courtesy or during certain protocol actions, CPAs should create commissions for keeping a record of such gifts, maintaining some sort of registry when gifts are received, and, they should then be reported by officials, who would create a public list of such gifts. The CPAs have, however, established commissions for keeping record of gifts28. In the MJ, NAC, CS, the civil servants have reported receiving gifts, and authorities have emphasized registering these gifts in their registries. As of 01.02.2014, the list of gifts was published on the NAC website29. It should be noted that the value of the gifts, which, according to the law, can be accepted by civil servants, is not a symbolic one. The value of gifts may not exceed1000 MDL. This is because the average value of pensions is1000 MDL and the average wage in the budgetary sector is roughly 3400 MDL. Problems in applying the policy on handling conflicts of interest Most CPAs did not indicate any problems in applying this policy. However, some authorities mentioned the following: “there is no effective collaboration with NIC: legislation on declarations of interest has many uncertainties and consultations offered by NIC differ in time for the same situations”; “workload of the declaration collectors is big and we often fail to do it because of other responsibilities we have”; “There are cases when the civil servants refused to file declarations claiming confidentiality of information”; “NIC did not organize any training on filing in declarations of personal interests and declarations of income and assets”; “NIC should adjust the legislative and normative basis to establish distinct functions/staff units responsible for the whole process of collecting declarations (collection, recording, issuance of confirming documents, sending declarations to the NIC) in the CPA, since designating the employees of HR departments for this purpose as collectors are burdening their work.” Conclusions: Most of the CPAs made efforts to apply the policy of handling conflicts of interest and promoting ethical standards. The situation improving when compared to the situation in2012. CPAs have strengthened the process of filing declarations of interest, and most of the authorities report that civil servants have filed their declarations on time. Civil servants began to report cases of conflicts of interest, but those who do so is still small. CPAs have begun to enforce compliance with laws regulating conflicts of interest. CPAs have also identified cases of failure to report conflicts of interest, violations of restrictions and incompatibilities, and have informed the NIC about such cases. However, the CPAs’ ability to control deviations, and to detect and handle conflicts of interest is still highly inadequate. The NIC has intensified cooperation with CPAs, and has created a database of persons responsible for declarations collection. At the same time in 2013, the NIC initiated a series of controls on possible violations of the law on conflicts of interest, established the existence of conflicts of interest, and has informed the NAC of these conflicts so that it can then order to apply administrative sanctions. However, the resources of the NIC (including financial, personnel, information, and technical resources) are insufficient for such largescale operations. Many of the NIC’s decisions on conflicts of interest are continually challenged, and the Commission faces a wave of complaints of this kind in the future. The motivation that served as basis for establishing common NIC documents has still not been made public. An important problem related to the legal framework is the lack of accountability for failure to resolve or handle conflicts of interest (ex. For making decisions or participation in the decision-making process in situations of conflict of interest).

According to MYS, the ministry has developed the draft administrative act on the approval of the Commission for keeping record and valuation of gifts (in conformity with GD 134/22.02.2013) and it follows to be submitted for approval subsequently. 29 http://cna.md/sites/default/files/combatere/web_lista_cadou_2013.pdf

Recommendations: 

Introduce in the legislation the necessity of having an accountability policy for failures to resolve/improper resolution of conflicts of interest (for decision making, or participation in decisionmaking in conflict of interest situations);



The CPAs shall take measures to improve the monitoring policy: - Increase the CPAs’ capacity for internal monitoring (the Law on Conflict of Interest/Code of Conduct) by engaging their control/internal security subdivisions;



During the meetings of collegial bodies, such as employment commissions, public procurement commissions, etc., state whether or not their members are involved in a conflict of interest;

Notify the NIC about any violations of the aw on Conflict of Interest by employees;

Continuous training of employees on topics related to ethical conduct and handling of conflicts of interest, with a special focus on the mandatory reporting of CI;

Inform the public about the results of policy implementation by using various media outlets (newspapers, magazines, websites, etc.)

Enhance the NIC’s capacity to supervise compliance with legislation by providing necessary financial resources and personnel (including the establishment of a legal department, hiring qualified personnel), salary increases, and by ensuring that the NIC is in contact with providers’ databases; Making the NIC’s operation transparent: publication of the motivation/underlying establishment of the conflict of interest, publication of voting results of the NIC’s members during meetings, publication of the NIC’s meeting schedule on their respective website; More active involvement of the NIC in the CPA employees’ training, increase communication with employees: organize seminars and workshops to discuss problems and exchange experiences in the field of policy implementation; insert a special section for frequently asked questions regarding the CPAs on the NIC website;



Ensure the traceability of the control cases initiated by NIC (starting from the opening of the case until the definitive ruling of the court);



Develop a Guide for CPAs regarding the documentation and settlement of CI cases.

IV. Deficiencies in the implementation of conflict of interestsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; policy and solutions for improvement (focus group) Methodological aspects The qualitative sociological research was focused on the evaluating opinions, attitudes, and practices used in treating conflicts of interest within central public administrations (CPAs). The study was conducted using a focus group, a mini-group, and an in-depth interview. Fourteen respondents were interviewed, including representatives of the National Integrity Commission (NIC) and National Anticorruption Center (NAC). The respondents were selected based on the connection of their activity to application of the conflict of interest handling policy (see the Table). It is important to note that public authorities were required to delegate representatives to the focus group, and that those who participated in an in-depth interview have shown interest in carrying out these activities. Research Plan Interviewed Category Representatives of NIC Representatives of NAC Representatives of CPA

Technique Mini-group Comprehensive interview Focus group

No. of Interviewed People 2 1 11

Date 30 May 2 June 10 July

The study was carried out in May-June 2014. The people were interviewed on the basis of an interview guide, which focused on the following aspects: achievements and challenges in handling conflicts of interest in legal terms, practices regarding the declaration of personal interests and reporting of conflicts of interest, issues faced by public authorities in applying the conflict of interest handling policy, and suggestions regarding the improvement of described public policy. Study challenges: -

Relatively new topic for the Republic of Moldova, legal gaps and omissions; confusing terms and procedures such as conflict of interest, corruption, declaration of personal interests, declaration of income and assets, declaration of conflict of interest, etc.

Some representatives of public administrations were hesitant to openly express their opinions on the handling of conflicts of interest and the institutions where these cases occur.

Achievements and Problems in the Field of Conflicts of Interest (legal and practical aspects) Achievements The topic of conflicts of interest handling, in the opinion of the interviewed people, has been discussed more intensely in recent years, especially after the establishment of the NIC. According to some interviewed experts, there has been progress in the field, namely at the legislative level. This began with the adoption of Law No.16 on Conflicts of Interest on 15.02.2008, and has continued with further amendments and additions, which developed an application mechanism (the obligation to appoint people responsible for the collection of declarations of personal interests, approval of the declarations of personal interest template, guidelines on filing the declaration, introduction of liability for failure to declare conflicts of interest, etc.). Once the NIC was instituted in 2012, the process of collecting declarations of personal interest was launched. It is now required that declarations must be verified by the NIC, and then subsequently published on the webpage of the respective authority (CPA). The NIC has a database of collectors of declarations of interests. 44

Because the declarations of personal interests are public, people can warn NIC about eventual deviations in filing a declaration. Recently, monitoring activities of civil society regarding anticorruption policies have intensified, in particular, the conflict of interest handling policy. Interlocutors from public authorities have noticed the beneficial effect of monitoring on discipline/motivation, experience and best practices, and the formulation of recommendations to improve the legal framework in the field: “Lately, TI-Moldova has undertaken a comprehensive monitoring of anticorruption policies. When requests for information are received from TIMoldova, I analyse them as urgent. I put them in front of requests received from other authorities, even from State Chancellery. The fact that we are monitored and we receive feedback, especially, individual recommendations is very important to us,” “After the monitoring in 2012, the TI-Moldova report was discussed with the Minister; we went step-by-step through every policy and we discussed the measures that need to be undertaken. According to the monitoring results of 2013, the Ministry was [the] leader in applying anticorruption policies”. According to NIC and NAC representatives, there have also been multiple awareness and training activities for public servants, which were organized with the support of concerned authorities and representatives of civil society, in particular Transparency International – Moldova. Moreover, the number of complaints from civil society and mass media regarding the non-declaration of conflicts of interest and decision-making in conflict of interest situations has increased. Similarly, in public institutions, a greater level of familiarization among civil servants with the topic of conflict of interest has been observed. According to the respondents, some authorities have registered progress when regulating the declaration of personal interests and conflicts of interests. “The employment decision includes the obligation to declare personal interests in time, immediate reporting of conflicts of interest;” “the labour contract indicates that the employee has no right to violate the restrictions and has to avoid incompatibilities and conflicts of interests.” The NAC has an internal regulation that governs the reporting of conflicts of interest, and demonstrates their resolution in keeping records of conflicts of interest. At the initiative and request of NAC, a number of public authorities have started to keep records of conflicts of interest. Challenges/Problems Although many positive moments have been noticed with regards to improving the legal framework that regulates the conflicts of interest, and from the practice of declaration of personal interests, the interviewers have mentioned a number of issues that hamper the efficient application of the conflict of interest handling policy. a) Legislative issues: -

There are no sanctions for decision-making or participation in decision-making in conflict of interest situations: “There is no liability for admitting a conflict of interest. There is only liability for nondeclaration of conflicts of interest, for non-submission of declarations of personal interests, and false declarations”;

There are no sanctions on managers of public authorities/persons responsible for non-resolution of conflicts of interest.

The timeframe for confirming the existence of a conflict of interest is very short (one month), which makes it difficult to apply sanctions for non-declaration. “NIC cannot acknowledge an existing conflict of interest, if it was not declared; cannot summon all persons, etc.; cannot make a motivated observation and submit it to the NAC for the contravention to be administered.”

Only the NIC can appeal administrative/legal acts that are adopted in conflict of interest situations, in order to repeal them. “NIC has neither time nor administrative and human resources to follow this process. The legislation should stipulate absolute nullity of acts adopted in situations of conflict of interest, so that any person can have the right to appeal these acts in court;” “A decision made in a 45

situation of conflict of interest regarding the selection of a participant to the tender, awarding a contract should be undone, and these contracts should be voided and the cancelation should be absolute, and there should exist the possibility for this to be invoked by any person…” -

There are some ambiguous terms in the legislation, which should either be removed or clarified: “the law does not stipulate the meaning of interested person, but one of the methods to identify the conflict of interest is the notification of the NIC by interested natural or legal persons,” “it should be mentioned clearly in the law when the segment of non-declaration of conflict of interest is considered consumed from the moment when the person did not declare the conflict or from the moment this non-declaration was found out.”

Lack of clarity in submitting two types of declarations (of personal interest and income and assets) – “declaration on income and assets shall be submitted within 20 days from the date of employment, and the declaration of personal interest – in 15 days from the date of employment. More information is…included in both declarations, for instance, paid activities, founding/shareholder of companies, etc.”

The form used for declaring personal interests does not include a section for data about people close to the declarant. This makes it difficult to determine the interests of people related to the declarant: “The Declaration does not cover a very important segment of personal interests that result in family relationships with close persons and does not fulfil its role of conflict of interest prevention instrument.”

b) Insufficient decisional transparency in NIC According to one of the interviewees, “when we have two apparently similar situation… in the first case, the Commission makes a decision to ascertain a conflict of interest, and in the second case, it does not ascertain the conflict of interest, the lack of transparency in decision-making process [engender] perplexity and distrust. If the reason to make a decision is public, then… distrust would be eliminated.” Another participant in discussion claims that the NIC’s argument that the motivation behind its decisions cannot be made public because of personal data is not convincing, because this information could be anonymous, and that by stating its motivation and reason for action, the NIC and its actions would become more transparent. At the same time, during discussions, it was mentioned that the NIC’s actions are not widely known, and many subjects, including representatives of public institutions, report conflicts of interest to NAC, which are being handled by the NIC. c) NIC politicization. An NIC representative has mentioned that this is a significant impediment in the commission’s activity, which lacks transparency as mentioned above. This was also recognized by the members of NIC. d) Insufficient funding for NIC, personnel deficit makes it difficult to carry out the duties of this institution. “We have requested many training courses from the Commission, especially related to[the] submission of annual declarations, but we have been refused because they…[did… not foresee[e] expenditures for this purpose in the budget.” e) Lack of financing in applying sanctions for the non-declaration of conflicts of interest. “NIC has ascertained many situations of conflicts of interests, including…the activity of dignitaries and has initiated the application of…sanctions. However, nobody responded for non-declaration of conflicts of interest. The society has the perception that this sanction is formal and too mild. We have 30 files on the roll in the Prosecutor’s Office, but none in court. I am not blaming the prosecutors and I am not criticizing, but Article 352 of the Criminal Code cannot be applied and it needs to be amended.” This happens due to different reasons, beginning with overstressing NIC members, appealing NIC decisions, and the existence of a limited timeframe during which prosecution can occur, etc. “99% of NIC decisions are being appealed…then intentionally delayed in court. They come with an attorney, whom they change the following day, I was sick and the trial lasts for one, two, three years until the lawful prescription time expires,” in reference to the period of time allowed for prosecution, and statues of limitations.

How to Declare Personal Interests and Report Conflicts of Interest Declaration of Personal Interests The respondents have noted that generally, the process of filing declarations of interests to public authorities is in line with the law: there are collectors of declarations, and the mechanism of declarations collection and their transfer to the NIC is well-established. “In our institution, taking into account the large number of employees, the submission of declarations of interests, income and assets starts…[in the]…middle of January. Based on [the] Director’s Order, a schedule for filing declarations is developed. Practically, we have no issues in collecting annual declarations.” ”At the beginning of each year, the Human Resources Department informs the employees via online messaging about legal provisions regarding the compulsoriness to submit declarations and provides them with instructions on filling up the declarations.” However, interlocutors have mentioned certain issues related to the submission of declarations when resigning from the workplace, and a year after resignation. Civil servants often do not submit declarations when resigning. Authorities have tried various methods to ensure declarations submission. ‟We ask for the declaration of interests before we release the employment record book,” ‟The dismissal card includes a requirement on the submission of declaration and until it is not submitted we do not release the employment record book. We stipulate the requirement to submit the declaration of interests within 15 days in the dismissal order.” However, many interviewees have noted that it is important for people to not exceed their duties when insisting on submitting declarations. “We had a case in our institution when at the indication of the management we did not issue the work certificate because the former employee did not submit the declaration. We were summoned to court within 2 weeks…” ”We cannot force people to submit declarations. However, we do make a reference in the administrative dismissal order about the compulsoriness to submit the declarations.” As for the submission of declaration after a year of resignation, some respondents said that it was difficult because the authorities have no contractual commitment with the given person. Even former civil servants who wish to submit a declaration have no guidance on where to submit it: to the NIC or a former employer. NIC representatives state that, according to the legislation, the former employees have to submit the declaration to the former employer, which would then be directed to the NIC. A part has chosen to address directly to NIC and their declarations were not received. Respondents from some authorities note that they contact the persons and remind them about the compulsoriness of submitting the declarations. “We have sent letters to all persons who resigned a year ago, and about 80% [have] submitted declarations.” According to respondents, when civil servants do not submit declarations or do not observe the timeframe for submission of declarations, the public authority is required to inform the NIC by submitting a list of the respective persons. NIC representatives mention that the quality of the lists is often questionable: “they are not open and objective, and even conclude erroneous lists. They include the people who are in missions, people X, Y, Z and no addresses, positions…” Declarations of personal interest, in many respondents views, are formal and not always useful in identifying CI. This is because declarations do not include information about family members: “The template of declaration allows declaring only the personal interests of the declarant and not of his/her family members.. Also, some information in the declaration of personal interest is duplicated elsewhere. The respondents think multiple declarations should be merged in one document. Furthermore, respondents invoked the issue of overloading the collectors of declarations in some institutions in the declaration period. Usually, the collectors are appointed employees of human resources departments and are assigned additional duties without being an increase in pay. “The law stipulates that the manager independently shall decide on the number of collectors, depending on the number of declarants, but this is not done in practice, so a sole person is responsible. At present, our database (red.- NIC) includes about 900 collectors. If divided by the number of declarants, it’s a huge pressure on one collector [especially]… if some people do not submit their declarations.” 47

Collectors mentioned that it needs to be clarified that they are responsible for the collection of declarations and providing assistance in filing the declarations, but the accuracy of information does not refer to their duties – “collectors shall be responsible for the correctness of filled up declarations; it is important to include in the corresponding box what is required…but we are not responsible for what the person is declaring.” Moreover, the interlocutors have mentioned that the guidelines for filing declarations of income and assets and of personal interests are not adequately clear, and leave room for interpretation. To mention certain information, one must consult different authorities, for instance, from the Cadastre. This process is timeconsuming. Many participants in discussions have said that the workload of collectors and the workload of the NIC would be significantly reduced once online declarations are introduced, and they requested free digital signatures for people who would submit declarations of personal interests and declarations of income and assets electronically. Reporting Conflicts of Interest Some respondents have noted that there have not been noticeable achievements so far in reporting and resolving the conflicts of interest in the LPA. “With small exceptions, in case of civil servants, who, on their own initiative, have submitted these declarations, the mechanism does not really work.” Some explanations include: -

Insufficient awareness of civil servants about the provisions of legal framework - “Although the professional level of civil servants in this topic is advanced, many continue to confuse the definition of conflict of interest with corruption. Furthermore, many civil servants confuse two types of declarations: that of income and assets with that of personal interests. At the same time, the civil servants confuse the declarations of personal interests with declaration of conflict of interest.”

A great majority of public authorities lack the mechanisms (regulations, procedures) to regulate the reporting and resolution of conflicts of interest.

As a rule, public authorities do not internally monitor the identification and reporting of conflicts of interest and cannot ensure the involvement of internal security/internal audit sub-divisions in this process.30

The management of public authorities does not always show a serious attitude towards the resolution of conflicts of interest.

The legislation does not set forth sanctions for making decisions in conflict of interest situations, and the fines for their non-declaration are too lenient.

The respondents have mentioned that the reported number of conflicts of interest is very small, and they do not exclude the fact that many conflicts of interest are not declared. This is confirmed by TI-Moldova’s monitoring results of the conflict of interest handling policy in CPAs: in 2013, the civil servants reported only 4 situations of conflict of interest in 20 monitored CPAs. As a rule, conflicts of interests are reported in to the NAC; there are few cases of reporting conflicts of interests to other authorities31. The representatives of public authorities mentioned that they try to identify conflicts of interest when hiring instead of during employment. However, according to several CPAs, the number of civil servants who communicate with human resource departments to determine if there is a conflict of interest is growing. The participants in discussions mentioned that personal interests of civil servants should not be seen as something negative. It is important for civil servants to declare conflicts of interest, to abstain from making decisions when in conflict of interest situations, and to enforce the manager’s decision regarding resolution of the conflict of interest. “A conflict of interest situation in the activity of civil servant can appear anytime, 30

An obstacle in this regard is negative perceptions of civil servants regarding the activity of internal auditors which is usually associated with “snitches” in the Soviet times. 3131 TI-Moldova, CAPC, Monitoring of anticorruption policies in central public authorities in 2013, http://www.transparency.md/Docs/Raport%20monitorizare%20politici%20APC%20rom.pdf.

and he/she has to report it and try not to make decisions in such situations. An obvious impediment is the lack of reaction of people in hierarchically superior positions, when they are informed or, even worse, when the person who reported a conflict of interest or another corruptible action is subject to further consequences (dismissal, conflicts with colleagues, etc.).” At the same time, respondents think that it is very important that when a decision is made in a conflict of interest situation, the administrative act be cancelled. Participants in discussions have reiterated that the mechanism of reporting conflicts of interest is not explicit. “According to the law, the civil servant who is in a conflict of interest situation shall declare it to the immediate superior not later than in 3 days. The conflict reporting and examination, the record of conflict of interest procedures are not expressly stipulated; the liability of the manager/responsible person if he/she has not undertaken any measures to resolve the conflict of interest is missing…” In this context, the NAC practice of handling conflicts of interest applied to the basis of regulation on recording reported conflicts of interest and resolution procedure is relevant (the Regulation includes forms for reporting conflicts of interest developed based on Art.9 (1) of Law on Conflict of Interest). Thus, when the civil servant finds out/ascertains that he/she is in a conflict of interest, the following steps should be taken: –

–

Step I – within 3 days from the moment when the civil servant finds out he/she is in a conflict of interest, he/she has to notify in writing the person in a superior position (the template developed by the NAC is presented in the Annex to this report). Step II – the supervisor of the civil servant shall send the report to Internal Security Division, who will analyse it and identify option(s) for resolution of the conflict. This information shall be submitted to the Director of NAC, who will analyse it and make a final decision. Step III – the civil servant shall be informed about the decision of how to resolve the conflict of interest and shall execute it.

The NAC representative mentioned that “the institution has registered cases of conflict of interest that result from the relationship with the God-parents (these people are not included in the list of family members stipulated by the legislation). All the cases of conflict of interest were resolved by redistributing the tasks, without stopping the activity within the institution.” An important moment in identifying conflicts of interest is the monitoring of the employees’ lifestyle. NAC initiated this process in 2013. The institution has a department responsible for the integrity of employees, with clear and functional mechanisms for their evaluation and sanctioning. The NAC started to extend this process to other public authorities. In 2014, at the request of NAC, public institutions have started to keep more records, including records of conflict of interest situations.32 However, the NAC representative mentioned that even if these records were kept by a majority of institutions, due to lack of reporting of conflicts of interest, there is no standardized practice of conflict of interest resolution (except – NAC registry). The representative of MIA said that “to monitor the lifestyle, at the request of the minister, a group of specialists for visiting authorities to train the employees in the conflict of interest matter and its record has been formed. At present, 20 out of 43 subdivisions of MIA keep records of conflicts of interest. But these do not include the reasons for non-reporting the conflict of interest.” Some respondents mentioned that in the authority they work for, the identification of conflicts of interest relies on the competence of internal auditors. “The internal auditor has to monitor the conflicts of interest, including [during] hiring…, the conclusion of procurement contracts, etc. But the situation is deplorable: the auditors come and go. Some say that they do not want to be “snitches;” “in a conflict of interest that was not reported by the manager of the institution, the internal auditor was found guilty because apparently, he was supposed to identify the conflict of interest and to intervene to cancel the decision made...”

NAC has requested information about the existence of the following registers in institutions: register of gifts, register of warnings, register of conflicts of interest, and register of inappropriate influence. All those who replied to the request (681 out of 1043 letters) by 2 June 2014, said that they have just started the registers after NAC’s request, except for the register of gifts, because one quarter of institutions had this before the NAC’s request.

The interlocutors discussed the reporting and resolution of conflicts of interests by judges. According to representatives of NIC, the Code of Civil Procedure expressly stipulates that when a judge examines a civil case, if one of the parties is his/her relative, the judge shall declare a conflict of interest and abstain from making a decision or recuse himself/herself. NIC cannot make any decisions regarding eventual conflicts of interests concerning judges because they are covered by another legal field and do not fall under the Law on Conflict of Interest. “According to Law on the Status of Judges, they have to declare conflict of interest situations, to recuse themselves in trial, and the verification shall be made by the SCM, which will apply sanctions.” According to a NIC representative, the Commission cannot apply sanctions once the SCM takes measures. The duties of NIC and SCM are therefore overlapping. As for the restrictions of post-employment, the participants in discussions mentioned that although legislation stipulates such restrictions, there is no mechanism for enforcing these restrictions and sanctions for noncompliance. Some interlocutors were very sceptical about the ability to monitor these restrictions in the future: “People who resign have no contractual relations and we cannot force them to submit [a] declaration one year later to check whether they observe the restrictions or not,” further stating that “Such verifications involve additional financial and human resources and we have not planned such activities and expenses.” However, in the opinion of respondents, “this question should not be removed from the agenda; the experience of other countries should be studied in the eventual replication in the [Republic of] Moldova and the civil servants should know the respective restrictions.” Recommendations In the opinion of the interviewed persons, how to handle conflicts of interest is a relatively new field for both public authorities and civil servants. Because of the gaps and oversights in legal framework, the reporting mechanism, and resolution of conflicts of interest, many other interventions are necessary at different levels. Thus, from the legal point of view, the respondents consider the following to be necessary: -

introduce sanctions for decision-making in conflict of interest situations;

introduce sanctions for responsible managers who admitted conflicts of interests. In this context, some experts have mentioned that the punishments could be set depending on the value of caused prejudice by making decisions in a conflict of interest situation. “For instance, if the prejudice does not exceed MDL 50 000, a contravention fine could be applied, and when the prejudice exceeds MDL 50 000, then a criminal fine should be applied simultaneously with caused prejudice recovery (according to the respondent, in some European countries the criminal fines are quite high and reach EUR 30 000). Eventually, the criminal fine could start from 2500 conventional units in the R. Moldova33”.

change the competence of ascertaining the non-declaration of the conflict of interest from NAC to NIC will save time and resources;

extend the period of time allowed to determine the existence of a conflict of interest from one month to one year, and “to decree that the declarations are valid for at least 10-year period” or “to investigate an eventual conflict of interest situation at any time.”

impose sanctions for violating post-employment restrictions, at a minimum, contravention sanctions.

require that data about family members be included on the template used for declaration of conflicts of interest in order to aid in the identification of conflict of interest. “Currently, the declaration template includes data that only refer to the dependents, ignoring close personal interests (of spouse, children, parents …). In Romania, such personal interests of civil servants are mentioned in the declaration of personal interests.” “It is necessary to suggest it to the civil society and include the data on close persons in the declaration of personal interest; otherwise, these declarations are useless.”

NIC representatives mentioned that there is a draft law that could improve and consolidate the activity of the Commission, but the examination of this draft law has been delayed. This draft includes many proposals such 33

The equivalent of one conventional unit is MDL 20 MDL (about 1.1 EUR).

as the exclusion of overlapping duties of boh the NIC and NAC, decreasing the number of persons obliged to submit declarations of personal interest by focusing on those who have positions of responsibility, and evaluation of those are at a higher risk for conflicts of interest – “we have about 45 thousand people who have to declare their personal interests…In Georgia, for instance, there are about 5 thousand people, who declare their personal interests, and it would be logical to reduce the number of persons obliged to declare personal interests.” To increase familiarization with the provisions of legal framework, the respondents suggested the following: -

continuous training of civil servants in the field of conflicts of interest – “civil servants should be trained continuously; it is necessary to examine the case studies, the explanation of the reporting procedure, and resolution of conflicts of interest.”

the organisation of training courses on anti-corruption policies for managers of public authorities, focusing on resolving conflicts of interest; to make managers liable, if they do not observe the obligations under law on conflicts of interest (for instance, failure to inform the NIC about nondeclaration of personal interests).

send clear messages about the importance of declaring conflicts of interest in cases of family relations, which are not covered by legislation (God-parents, friends), and supporting such initiatives.

The respondents think that it is necessary to establish and consolidate internal conflicts of interest monitoring mechanisms by involving internal control/internal audit subdivisions, and, depending on the case, include internal security services in conflict of interest cases and the monitoring process; increase their skills through exchange of experience, promotion of good practices, and supporting the NAC and other experts. As for NIC activity, interlocutors have mentioned the need to depoliticize the NIC, suggesting contest-based election of members of the Commission depending on knowledge, experience, and skills in the field. Furthermore, need for enhancement of transparency in NIC’s decision making – publishing the motivation for determining the existence of conflicts of interest. In the opinion of the respondents, it is necessary to accelerate the online filing of declarations, which would facilitate their collection and verification, and would reduce the workload of collectors and the NIC. Also, the respondents claim that if civil society is involved more actively and constructively in the monitoring of conflicts of interest x, notifying the NIC about eventual conflicts of interests, and following the initial causes and public awareness, this would discipline public authorities and compel the application of the conflict of interest handling policy.

Conclusions The handling of conflicts of interest in the civil service sector has been a topic on the agenda of many public authorities. Significant progress has been made in the legal framework and initiation of mechanisms for declaring personal interests. The reporting of conflicts of interest, however, among civil servants is still an exception than a habit. Although the legal framework has been improved, there are gaps and omissions that impede the activity of the NIC and reduce the efficiency of the conflict of interest handling policy. The legal issues include lack of sanctions for decision making in conflict of interest situations and a lack of liability for managers responsible for conflicts of interest. A draft law, which was meant to reduce these types legal gaps, is in the Parliament, but its examination and approval has been delayed. Besides legislative gaps, the politicization of NIC, the lack of transparency in Commission’s decisionmaking, and its insufficient financing have negative effects on the resolution of conflicts of interest.

The conflict of interest handling is not a functional mechanism, due to lack of sanctioning civil servants for failure to declare conflicts of interest, and the difficulty of trying to annul administrative/legal acts created in conflict of interest situations. The submission process of annual declarations of personal interests is, as a rule, well established, but the submission of declarations after resignation is still difficult. The observance of post-employment restrictions is practically at the discretion of former civil servants. There are neither sanctions for non-observance of restrictions nor a monitoring mechanism. The NIC should become a functional structure, and thus, there is a need for legal changes, such as depoliticizing the Commission, and its subsequent equipment with sufficient financial, human, technical, and technological resources. Notification of civil servants, including of managers of public authorities in the field of conflicts of interest handling, establishment of internal reporting/resolution of conflicts of interest procedures, involvement in the internal monitoring process of internal control/audit/security subdivisions, and the free exchange of experience between authorities remain stringent measures. It is rational idea to try and reduce the number of declarants of personal interests. It is also necessary to revise the template of declaration of personal interests and to accelerate the introduction of online declarations. More active and constructive involvement of civil society in monitoring conflicts of interest, notification of eventual conflicts of interest to the NIC, and follow-up on cases initiated by the Commission could compel the application of the conflict of interest handling policy.

Appendix. Templates for the Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (source â&#x20AC;&#x201C; NAC) INFORMATION to the attention of hierarchically superior manager or hierarchically superior institution drafted in accordance with provisions of Article 9 para. (1) let. a) of Law No. 16-XVI on Conflict of Interest of 15.02.2008 I, the undersigned ______________________________________________________________ holding the position of__________________________________________________________ within________________________________________________________________________ would like to inform you that on___/____/____/ I have found out about the existence of a personal interest / a personal interest of a person I know: _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ The personal interest mentioned above generates a conflict of interest situation for me with regard to: the following decision I have to make: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ the following decision I have to take part in: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ the following action I have to undertake to fulfil my duties: ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Date___________________________

Signature_________________________

INFORMATION to the attention of hierarchically superior manager or hierarchically superior institution drafted in accordance with provisions of Article 9 para. (1) let. b) of Law No. 16-XVI on Conflict of Interest of 15.02.2008 I, the undersigned _____________________________________________________________ holding the position of__________________________________________________________ within________________________________________________________________________ would like to inform you that on___/____/____/ I have found out about the following facts. The legal person (commercial or non-commercial)_____________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ received from the public entity I work for____________________________________________ goods, including financial means _____________________________________________ loans secured by state or local public administration authority______________________ _______________________________________________________________________ public procurement order ___________________________________________________ In this organisation, I/people close to me ____________________________________________ hold the position: founder shareholder associate member of the Management Board member of Control or Revision Commission of a legal person. Date___________________________

Signature_________________________