"Corruption Proofing" Project is implemented by the Centre for the Analysis and Prevention of Corruption (CAPC) within the framework of the Joint Project of the European Commission and the Council of Europe against corruption, money laundering and terrorist financing in the Republic of Moldova (MOLICO), co-financed by the European Commission,
the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and
the Council of Europe.
The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the CAPC experts and can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union, SIDA and the Council of Europe.
In October 2007, CAPC released the "Effectiveness of the Corruption Proofing Mechanism Study" (hereinafter referred to as" Study ").
The Goal of the Study is to identify the effectiveness of the mechanism for corruption proofing of the draft legislation. A summary of the main findings of the study is presented below.
In the period of October 2006 – October 2007 CAPC put under corruption proofing expertise a total of 202 draft legislative acts placed on the website of the Parliament. In their reports, the CAPC experts formulated objections about 2256 elements found in the drafts subjected to expertise. Upon writing of this study 117 of 202 draft laws put under expertise were passed by the Parliament and published in the Official Gazette.
- Categories of corruptibility elements most frequently identified in draft laws are: faulty reference and allocation-of-regulatory-authority norms, conflict of laws and lacunas (35,6%), excessive or ambiguous discretionary powers of the public authorities (28,6%) and defective linguistic formulations (21,9%).
- Effectiveness of the corruption proofing reports drawn up by the CAPC experts was measured by verifying the acceptance of 1064 objections about concrete corruptibility elements found in 117 draft laws put under expertise, which have been passed by the Parliament. Of 1064 objections 562 were accepted, representing an output of 52,8% of the corruption proofing reports presented by the CAPC experts.
- Transparency of the legislative process. The failure to publish the informative notes on the website of the Parliament together with the text of the draft legislative acts was constantly criticised in the expert reports of the CAPC. Following these critics the practice of placing the informative notes on the Parliament’s website was influenced considerably. The effectiveness of these critics became visible after the first 6 months. Since May 2007 the frequency of making the informative notes public started to increase and as of July 2007 there were no more cases in which the informative notes were not made public along with the text of the drafts.
- Justification of the drafts. Most of the informative notes to the draft laws put under expertise were general and formal, without going into the details of the need of promoting the new draft laws. Contrary to the requirements of the Law 780/2001, the draft laws were promoted absent an outline in the informative note of the “new elements, social, economic and other effects of their implementation”.
Implementation of 75,7% of all the draft laws considered by the CAPC experts implied financial and other types of costs, meaning that according to the Law 780/2001 the economic-financial justification was mandatory. Only 3,9% of these drafts were accompanied by such a justification.
References to the compatibility of the draft laws with the acquis communautaire and international standards were made in the text of the informative notes and of the drafts themselves in only 17,3% of the cases, leaving 83,7% of the draft laws developed contrary to the requirement of the Law 780/2001 about including in the informative notes “references to corresponding regulations of the European Community legislation and level of compatibility of the draft legislative act with these regulations”. The presence of direct references to the acquis communautaire and other international standards in the text of the draft laws did not involve on every occasion a genuine alignment of the national legislation to the EU and/or other standards.
- Promoting and damaging of some interests contrary to the public interest through draft laws submitted to the Parliament. The promotion of interests/benefits through draft legislative acts was found in 43,1% of the cases. 70,1% of the drafts promoting some interests/benefits were qualified by the experts as contrary to the public interest. 20,8% of all the drafts put under expertise were assessed as generating damages, contrary to the public interest. A clear tendency was remarked in initiating draft laws promoting/damaging interests/benefits by parliamentary deputies (65%), tendency which is almost double in manifestation if compared to the draft laws initiated by the Government (35%).
- Broadening of discretionary powers of the public authorities through draft laws submitted to the Parliament. Including in the draft laws provisions about the activity of the public authorities by which their discretionary powers are broadened is a typical trend of the drafts initiated by the Government, noted in 43% of the cases, while the initiatives of the deputies refer to this aspect thrice less, only in 17% of the cases. Bringing of legislative initiatives by the Government aiming at extension of their powers can also be qualified as a variety of promotion of interests, but this time it is a promotion of the departmental interests of the central public authorities, which are also the authors of the drafts promoted by the Government.
Publication available in Romanian and English languages