The newly appointed head of the Parliamentary Committee for Stabilization and Association of the European Parliament for Montenegro (POSP), Vladimir Bilčik, assessed that Montenegro has more work to do on its way to the European Union, especially in strengthening the independence and professionalism of the judiciary.
"A fully functional Judicial Council and the Constitutional Court are of the greatest importance for the good functioning of democratic Montenegro, so we will pay special attention to the development of events in this area," Bilčik said in an interview with "Vijesta".
He said that during his mandate, he will pay special attention to the position of journalists and media freedom in Montenegro, but also in the wider region of the Western Balkans.
"Since it has been a little more than seven years since Montenegro started accession negotiations, continued regional leadership in the EU accession process now requires us to see that an increasing number of negotiation chapters will be closed in the near future," said Bilčik.
The Parliamentary Committee for Stabilization and Association is an advisory body based on the Stabilization and Association Agreement between the country and the EU. They usually meet twice a year, once each in the national parliament and the European Parliament.
Montenegro, which is in your portfolio, you are the president of the EP Delegation in the Parliamentary Committee for Stabilization and Association, is a "leader in the region" for the local government and many foreign officials. What are we leaders in?
Montenegro was the most advanced country currently negotiating EU accession. It has continued to show progress in EU accession over the last decade.
However, it is important that the momentum created a few years ago does not fade, but on the contrary, continues to grow.
Montenegro has opened most chapters of the acquis: currently 32 chapters are open, but only three are temporarily closed.
Since it has been just over seven years since Montenegro began accession negotiations, continued regional leadership in the EU accession process now demands that we see an increasing number of negotiating chapters closed in the near future.
In two key chapters for the rule of law, there is no key progress - from the failure to address attacks on journalists to the acting state of the judiciary. How will it affect the work you do and help in the integration process of Montenegro?
The rule of law and fundamental freedoms, commonly known as Chapters 23 and 24, are key to progress in the accession process.
The main goal is to reach the starting benchmarks for Chapters 23 and 24.
I have studied in detail the assessment of the Commission's 2019 report, which shows that some progress has been made in justice and fundamental rights and that some progress has been made in justice, freedom and security.
Montenegro is moderately prepared in this area, but what stands out is that there is no progress in freedom of expression and freedom of the media. Old cases remain unsolved, as does the attempted murder of Olivera Lakić.
As I am from Slovakia, since the murder of investigative journalist Jan Kucijak and his fiancee Martina Kusnirova in February 2018, attacks on journalists have been a particularly sensitive issue for me.
I will pay special attention to the position of journalists and media freedom in Montenegro, but also in the wider region of the Western Balkans.
The European Parliament has repeatedly condemned attacks on journalists, intimidation...and I am convinced that the members of the European Parliament will continue to do so in this mandate as well.
Guaranteed freedom of expression, media freedom and a colorful media landscape are important indicators of the state of democracy in the country.
In the Assembly, there is a problem of a two-thirds majority, so in the Prosecutor's Office it is an acting situation, in the Judicial Council as well. It is also expected in the Constitutional Court because two judges are retiring and there is no two-thirds support in the parliament. Have you asked your colleagues from Montenegro about that problem and how to solve it?
The EU has been continuously supporting judicial reform in Montenegro for many years. The current situation shows that there is still a lot of work to be done, especially in strengthening the independence and professionalism of the judiciary.
I will raise these issues at the first meeting with our Montenegrin colleagues, which, I hope, can be held at the beginning of next year, during our first POSP meeting, which I will chair.
It is important that Montenegro progresses in the process of reforms related to the judiciary, which is part of Chapter 23. Although the institutional capacity of the judiciary has improved, the implementation of legislation related to the strengthening of the judiciary needs to be improved.
A fully functional Judicial Council and the Constitutional Court are of the greatest importance for the good functioning of democratic Montenegro, so we will pay special attention to the development of events in this area.
The Parliament of Montenegro has weak control mechanisms, parliamentary supervision has also weakened. The President of the Assembly does nothing about it and the Government almost has more power over the deputies who are supposed to control it. What do you think should be done about it?
Any functioning modern democratic country needs a strong legislature and a system of checks and balances for executive control and democratic oversight.
It is of vital interest for Montenegro to have a strong and fully functional parliament. I would like to recall the basic criteria for access, the famous Copenhagen criteria from 1993.
The first criterion for membership is the following: '(...) stability of institutions that guarantee democracy, rule of law, human rights and respect and protection of minorities'. The Montenegrin Parliament should move in the direction of full compliance with the EU's Copenhagen criteria.
The parliamentary committee imposed several fines on opposition MPs based on the head of parliament's assessment that they violated the rules of procedure. Is this too much power for the head of the Assembly, who avoids the same sanctions for members of the ruling majority?
I would refrain from commenting on the internal Rules of Procedure of the Parliament of Montenegro.
POSP previously adopted recommendations on several occasions, often at the suggestion of opposition MPs from Montenegro, but nothing happened in practice. What is the real power of the POSP, should its recommendations be binding?
The Parliamentary Committee for Stabilization and Association (POSP) is defined by Article 125 of the Stabilization and Association Agreement between the European Union and Montenegro, and its functioning is a legal obligation between the two parties.
Since 2010, the parliamentary committee has served as a real inter-parliamentary forum and adopted joint recommendations of European deputies and deputies of the Assembly.
POSP has met 17 times so far, and will meet for the 18th time in the spring, with new MPs.
The recommendations are a natural outcome of a joint parliamentary meeting and the text reflects current political issues and the state of accession negotiations.
They are a political statement, therefore they are essential for the outcome of joint meetings. By concluding these recommendations, the previous period is analyzed, but the focus is also placed on the next steps.
We should always strive to have a productive joint session and ultimately adopt recommendations for further action.
When taking into account the relevance of our work, it should be borne in mind that members of the European Parliament must ultimately approve any future EU enlargement.
Immunity does not protect MPs from criminal acts
Last year we had a situation with the arrest of two deputies who were protected by immunity. Now the Constitutional Court has abolished that provision from the law on the basis of which they were arrested. Is it possible to protect the integrity of the Assembly if the courts do not respect the immunity of the deputies, because the Court of Appeals estimated that it protects them only while they are in the building?
I would refrain from commenting on the decision of the Constitutional Court. Parliamentary immunity, in general, is a guarantee for politicians that they can exercise their political mandate freely.
He is not there to protect them from crimes. This is the main logic behind the Slovak National Council and the rules of procedure of the European Parliament that determine the waiver of immunity.
In the European Parliament, immunity can be revoked after the competent national authority requests the revocation.
After that, the JURI Committee (Committee for Legal Affairs) decides on the matter.
The JURI board formulates a recommendation at a plenary session, after which a vote is taken. Then the EP decides by simple majority vote.
There have been cases of waivers of immunity in previous mandates, such as Jean-Marie Le Pen and Marine Le Pen.
Bonus video:
