Upload
ti-moldova
View
219
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Â
Citation preview
1
Monitoring conflict of interests
in central public institutions
Moldova 2014
Transparency International – Moldova
2014
COMUNICAT DE PRESĂ
2
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
3
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.
4
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 State-
owned 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
5
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 – 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 – 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
6
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 non-
commercial 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.
7
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 non-
commercial), 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
8
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;
9
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
10
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.
11
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;
12
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.
13
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, merit-
based 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 TI-
Moldova conducting surveys related to the CI treatment policy in previous years, including 20123, 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 people
Share in total staff, %
Ministry of Economy 44 29
Ministry of Finance 50 20
Main State Tax Inspectorate 42 16
Customs Service (Central Apparatus) 61 20
Customs Service (Chisinau Customs Office) 61 20
Ministry of Justice 34 29
Ministry of Internal Affairs 46 31
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration 41 34
Ministry of Defense 33 55
Ministry of Regional Development and Construction 29 41
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry 34 34
Ministry of Transport. and Road Infrastructure 29 60
1 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.
14
Ministry of Environment 28 55
Ministry of Education 34 43
Ministry of Culture 16 35
Ministry of Labor, Social Protection and Family 30 33
Ministry of Health 27 36
Ministry of Information technology and Communications 24 53
Ministry of Youth and Sport 15 42
Agency for Land Relations and Cadaster 24 60
National Anti-Corruption Centre (Central Apparatus) 67 24
Total 769 29
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.
5 APC profile information is reflected in the Annexes.
15
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.
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.
Do you think conflict of interests’ is corruption?
Yes
57%
No
32%
Do not know
11%
16
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
88
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.
75
A Custom’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
93
In the Staff Evaluation Commission there is a request for promotion from one of the commission’s members.
the public servant will not participate in this meeting of the commission
64
17
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.
6 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.
18
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.
19
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?
20
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.
21
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;
22
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).
23
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?
24
Are you aware about any violations of the Code of Conduct/Ethics in your isntituion in 2013?
25
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)?
26
Are you aware of the staff evaluation/promotion procedure?
Do you consider the staff evaluation procedure transparent and objective?
27
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?
28
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 someone’s
interests?
29
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).
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.
Respondents who consider incorrect certain policies in institution, %
2
1612 9
24
3
18 1725
18 19
3
158
0 4 717 16 18 14
30
0
20
40
60
80
100
ME
C
MF
MJ
MA
I
MA
EIE
MA
MD
RC
MA
IA
MT
ID
MM
ME
D
MC
MM
PS
F
MS
MT
IC
MT
S
AR
FC
CN
A
IFP
S
SV
Ap C
entr
al
SV
BV
Ch
Media
30
If yes, during the last 12 months, corruption in your institution…
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.
31
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?
32
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 – 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?
33
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?
34
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, authorities’ internal oversight of observing restrictions and incompatibilities by employees.
35
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 20127, 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.
36
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), 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, 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.
37
III. The practices of applying conflict of interests’ 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.
9 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.
Conflict of Interests and Ethics
3,6
3,0 3,0 3,0 3,0
2,5
2,0 2,0 2,0
1,7 1,7
1,4 1,4
1,71,7
2,42,32,3
2,72,8
3,3
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
NA
C
MJ
MF
ISF
I
MT
RI
CS
ME
C
MD
ME
ALC
MA
FI
MY
S
ME
AE
I
MIT
C
MR
DC
MH
ME
D
MC
MIA
MLS
PF
Avera
ge
38
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.
39
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.
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.
Situation was coordinated by
the institution’s director.
Management of the General
Department for Fight against
Corruption.
The document was sent for
examination and signature to
another deputy director.
The officer was removed from the
examination of these cases.
CS,
1 pers.
A situation of related person subordination was reported. Human Resources Division at
the indication of the General
Director.
The subordinated person was
transferred to another position
without any conflict of interest.
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
Avoided answer 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
:
16 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.
40
- 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. 20 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
41
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 on-
line 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 Number of complaints received Type of violations established Sanctions applied
ME 3 calls from employees of the ME. Recorded violations: actions that damage the prestige and image of the authority, neglect and delay in carrying out the work and superiors indications.
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).
CS 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 www.transparency.md/Docs/Rezultatele%20sondajului%20CI%20in%20APC%202013%20%20final.pdf 27 www.transparency.md/Docs/Rezultatele%20sondajului%20CI%20in%20APC%202013%20%20final.pdf
42
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 large-
scale 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).
28 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
43
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 decision-
making 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.
44
IV. Deficiencies in the implementation of conflict of interests’ 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 Technique No. of Interviewed People Date
Representatives of NIC Mini-group 2 30 May
Representatives of NAC Comprehensive interview 1 2 June
Representatives of CPA Focus group 11 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.
45
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 TI-
Moldova, 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 non-
declaration 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
46
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.
47
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.”
48
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 time-
consuming. 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.
49
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...”
32
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.
50
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 non-
compliance. 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).
51
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 non-
declaration 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 decision-
making, and its insufficient financing have negative effects on the resolution of conflicts of interest.
52
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.
53
Appendix. Templates for the Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (source – 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_________________________
54
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_________________________