DOCSLIB.ORG

UNDP RS NARS and Indepen

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNDP RS NARS and Indepen The National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia Serbia AND INDEPENDENT BODIES SERBIA THE REPUBLIC OF OF ASSEMBLY NATIONAL NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA AND INDEPENDENT BODIES 253 NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA AND INDEPENDENT BODIES NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA AND INDEPENDENT BODIES Materials from the Conference ”National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia and Independent Bodies” Belgrade, 26-27 November 2009 and an Overview of the Examples of International Practice Olivera PURIĆ UNDP Deputy Resident Representative a.i. Edited by Boris ČAMERNIK, Jelena MANIĆ and Biljana LEDENIČAN The following have participated: Velibor POPOVIĆ, Maja ŠTERNIĆ, Jelena MACURA MARINKOVIĆ Translated by: Novica PETROVIĆ Isidora VLASAK English text revised by: Charles ROBERTSON Design and layout Branislav STANKOVIĆ Copy editing Jasmina SELMANOVIĆ Printing Stylos, Novi Sad Number of copies 150 in English language and 350 in Serbian language For the publisher United Nations Development Programme, Country Office Serbia Internacionalnih brigada 69, 11000 Beograd, +381 11 2040400, www.undp.org.rs ISBN – 978-86-7728-125-0 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations and the United Nations Development Programme. Acknowledgement We would like to thank all those whose hard work has made this publication possible. We are particularly grateful for the guidance and support of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, above all from the Cabinet of the Speaker and the Secretariat. A special debt of gratitude is owed to the representatives of the independent regulatory bodies; the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection, the State Audit Institution, the Ombudsman of the Republic of Serbia and the Anti-corruption Agency. This publication is a follow-up to the conference which took place in November 2009, as part of the National Assembly and UNDP project, “Strengthening the Accountability of the Serbian Parliament”. We would like to thank everyone who spoke at the conference and gratefully aknowledge the kind contribution of all whose papers appear here. Our gratitude is also due to the World Bank Institute and OECD/SIGMA for permission to re-produce and translate their materials. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 9 I. THE BASIS FOR PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY 11 Introductory Speeches Speaker of the National Assembly, Prof. Slavica Đukić-Dejanović Ph.D., . .13 United Nations Resident Coordinator a.i., Dorit Nitzan . .15 Parliament as One of the Means of Executive Branch Oversight - Boris Čamernik . 18 Conclusions from the Conference . 23 II. RELATIONS BETWEEN PARLIAMENT AND INDEPENDENT BODIES 25 Preface . 27 The Oversight Work of the Storting (Norwegian Parliament) –Marianne Seip . 30 The Constitution and Regulatory Bodies (Independent Bodies) – An Attempt at Defining the Place and the Role of Regulatory Bodies in the Constitutional System - Vladan Petrov . 43 Examples of the Relations Between Parliamentary Committees and an Independent Body - Relations Between Supreme Audit Institutions and Parliamentary Committees, An Excerpt from the SIGMA Paper No. 33 . 55 III. PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OVER THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE IMPORTANCE OF INDEPENDENT BODIES FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION 83 Preface . 85 The National Assembly, Independent Bodies and the Fight Against Corruption in Serbia - Stevan Lilić . 89 The Parliament and Independent Bodies - Slaviša Orlović . 116 The Position of the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance - Rodoljub Šabić. 125 Ombudsman of Serbia – the Role and Function - Dejan Milenković . 133 Protection of Human Rights and Control of the Administration - Robert Sepi. 163 Annual Reports by the Ombudsman to the Parliament of the Republic of Slovenia - Jernej Rovšek . .168 Public Oversight Functions of the Office of Auditor General of Norway - Jørgen Kosmo. 173 The Structure and Organisation of the National Audit Office of the United Kingdom - William Burnett . .177 7 Experience of European Countries in the Sphere of Creation and Functioning of a Specialised Body Responsible for the Co-ordination of National Efforts in the Sphere of Combating and Prevention of Corruption - Drago Kos. 183 Anti-corruption Independent Bodies and the National Assembly - Nemanja Nenadić. 191 Examples of the Work of Anti-corruption Commissions / Agencies: "Anti-Corruption Commissions Panacea or Real Medicine to Fight Corruption?" - by John R. Heilbrunn -An Excerpt from World Bank Institute Working Paper. 206 ANNEXES 217 Conference Agenda. 218 Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption - GOPAC. 221 8 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and Context The presence of an effective parliamentary institution is strongly correlated with the existence of a viable democracy and an open society. Such institutions are critical to the establishment and consolidation of democracy because they empower ordinary people to participate in the poli- cies that shape their lives. Parliaments are fundamental to establishing the rule of law, protecting human rights, overseeing transparent governance processes, and ensuring national compliance with international obligations. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) currently supports one in four parliaments globally. It does so primarily in recognition of the important role these institutions play in de- mocracy and development, but also because the existence of effective democratic oversight institutions is essential in the light of many donors shifting toward budget support as a vehicle for development assistance. Consequently, parliamentary development is an integral component of UNDP services in democratic governance, with activities aimed at enhancing the representa- tive, legislative or oversight capacity of parliamentary institutions in the governance process.1 In November 2009, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, with support from the UNDP Project “Strengthening the Accountability of the Serbian Parliament”, organised an intern ational conference “National Assembly and Independent Bodies”. Its objectives were to enable the National Assembly and its Independent Bodies to share their experiences and discuss avenues for strengthening their relationships, with special emphasis on international experiences in this area. The Conference offered a unique opportunity for the National Assembly Committees and In- dependent Bodies, some in existence for some time and some newly established, to address directly the highly complex issues that are of critical importance to their present functioning and future cooperation. It was attended by the Speaker, Deputy Speakers, Secretary General and MPs; and the heads of the independent bodies along with esteemed guests from the Kingdom 1 UNDP Strategy Note, Parliamentary Development , May 2009 9 of Norway’s Parliament and Auditor General; the Commissioner for Information and Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia; the Head of GRECO; CEO of GOPAC; the UK Auditor’s Office representative and representatives of the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Serbia. The Conference demonstrated how separate thematic workshops can be beneficial for all par- ties engaged in improving lines of communication and setting the groundwork for independent bodies, reporting to the National Assembly's committees. 1.2 The Publication This publication is a follow-up to the Conference, a record of the lessons learnt and opinions exchanged, but also a systematisation and extension of the data which, it is hoped, will enable comparative analyses. It is also intended to serve as a support to the National Assembly in drafting new Rules of Procedure, which incorporates the best model for the National Assembly, thus, strengthening its scrutiny function. The publication is organised in three sections that follow the structure of the Conference sessions. These sections present three dimensions of parliamentary scrutiny: I. Basis for Parliamentary Scrutiny; II. Relations between Parliament and Independent Bodies; and III. Parliamentary Scrutiny over the Executive Branch and the Importance of Independent Bodies for its Implementation. The Annexes contain GOPAC strategies for forming a National Chapter and the Conference Agenda. This publication sets out a vision of a reformed Parliament and advocates the adoption of more effective methods to hold the Government to account. Parliament's relationship with regulatory bodies and their role in parliamentary accountability has two dimensions. The first is the extent to which the regulators are accountable to Parliament, so that their internal administration and activity is scrutinised by politicians. The second is the extent to which Parliament uses the tech- nical investigations and evidence of these bodies as the basis on which to hold government to account. It is the second dimension that has the potential to make a real difference to par- liamentary scrutiny. The ‘extra-parliamentary’ scrutiny of the various regulatory or independent bodies has challenged the traditional role of Parliament, providing new forms and opportunity for proper scrutiny.2 2 Adapted from: Parliaments at the Apex: Parliamentary Scrutiny and Regolatory Bodies by the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny 10 I. THE BASIS FOR PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY 11 Introductory Speeches Prof. Slavica Đukić-Dejanović Ph.D. Speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia Dear representatives of the Norwegian
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hungary's Policy Towards Its Kin Minorities
    Hungary’s policy towards its kin minorities: The effects of Hungary’s recent legislative measures on the human rights situation of persons belonging to its kin minorities Óscar Alberto Lema Bouza Supervisor: Prof. Zsolt Körtvélyesi Second Semester University: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, Budapest, Hungary Academic Year 2012/2013 Óscar A. Lema Bouza Abstract Abstract: This thesis focuses on the recent legislative measures introduced by Hungary aimed at kin minorities in the neighbouring countries. Considering as relevant the ones with the largest Hungarian minorities (i.e. Croatia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine), the thesis starts by presenting the background to the controversy, looking at the history, demographics and politics of the relevant states. After introducing the human rights standards contained in international and national legal instruments for the protection of minorities, the thesis looks at the reasons behind the enactment of the laws. To do so the politically dominant concept of Hungarian nation is examined. Finally, the author looks at the legal and political restrictions these measures face from the perspective of international law and the reactions of the affected countries, respectively. The research shows the strong dependency between the measures and the political conception of the nation, and points out the lack of amelioration of the human rights situation of ethnic Hungarians in the said countries. The reason given for this is the little effects produced on them by the measures adopted by Hungary and the potentially prejudicial nature of the reaction by the home states. The author advocates for a deeper cooperation between Hungary and the home states. Keywords: citizenship, ethnic preference, Fundamental Law, home state, human rights, Hungary, kin state, minorities, nation, Nationality Law, preferential treatment,Status Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Synopsis of the Meeting Held in Strasbourg on 21 January 2013
    BUREAU OF THE ASSEMBLY AS/Bur/CB (2013) 01 21 January 2013 TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSEMBLY Synopsis of the meeting held in Strasbourg on 21 January 2013 The Bureau of the Assembly, meeting on 21 January 2013 in Strasbourg, with Mr Jean-Claude Mignon, President of the Assembly, in the Chair, as regards: - First part-session of 2013 (Strasbourg, 21-25 January 2013): i. Requests for debates under urgent procedure and current affairs debates: . decided to propose to the Assembly to hold a debate under urgent procedure on “Migration and asylum: mounting tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean” on Thursday 24 January 2013 and to refer this item to the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons for report; . decided to propose to the Assembly to hold the debate under urgent procedure on “Recent developments in Mali and Algeria and the threat to security and human rights in the Mediterranean region” on Thursday 24 January 2013 and to refer this item to the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy for report; . decided not to hold a current affairs debate on “The deteriorating situation in Georgia”; . took note of the decision by the UEL Group to withdraw its request for a current affairs debate on “Political developments in Turkey regarding the human rights of the Kurds and other minorities”; ii. Draft agenda: updated the draft agenda; - Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and of the Standing Committee (5 October 2012 – 21 January 2013): (Rapporteur: Mr Kox, Netherlands, UEL): approved the Progress report; - Election observation: i. Presidential election in Armenia (18 February 2013): took note of the press release issued by the pre-electoral mission (Yerevan, 15-18 January 2013) and approved the final composition of the ad hoc committee to observe these elections (Appendix 1); ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe
    Spotlight on Parliaments in Europe Issued by the EP Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments N° 13 - November 2016 Quality of legislation stemming from the EU On 19 September 2016, the Italian Senate submitted a request to the ECPRD network concerning the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. This request was an opportunity for National Parliaments to exchange best practices on how to ensure the quality of legislation with specific regard to transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU law. From the 21 answers provided by National Parliaments it is clear that transposition and implementation of EU Law is highly unlikely to require special attention. While almost all of them are using legislative guidelines and procedures for guaranteeing high standard of general law-making, only a few have felt the need to establish special mechanisms to ensure the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. The use of legislative guidelines and procedures; the main way to ensure the quality of legislation stemming from the EU. The use of legislative guidelines and procedures appears to be the most common way for National Parliaments to ensure the quality of legislation, also the legislation stemming from the EU. It allows for good linguistic coherence in the national languages while enhancing the standardization of the law. For example, in the case of Austria, the Federal Chancellery has published specific “Legistische Richtlinien”. In Spain, the instrument used is the Regulation Guidelines adopted in the Agreement of the Council of Ministers of 22 July 2005. Both Italian Chambers use Joint Guidelines on drafting of national legislation.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to the Government of Serbia on the Visit to Serbia Carried out by The
    CPT/Inf (2012) 17 Report to the Government of Serbia on the visit to Serbia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 1 to 11 February 2011 The Government of Serbia has requested the publication of this report and of its response. The Government’s response is set out in document CPT/Inf (2012) 18. Strasbourg, 14 June 2012 - 2 - CONTENTS Copy of the letter transmitting the CPT's report ............................................................................4 I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................5 A. Dates of the visit and composition of the delegation ..............................................................5 B. Establishments visited...............................................................................................................6 C. Consultations held by the delegation and co-operation received .........................................7 D. Immediate observations under Article 8, paragraph 5, of the Convention establishing the CPT ......................................................................................................................................8 E. National Preventive Mechanism ..............................................................................................8 II. FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED ..............................10 A. Establishments under the authority of the Ministry of Interior.........................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Norwegian Parliamentary Elections, 1906-2013: Representation and Turnout Across Four Electoral Systems
    Norwegian Parliamentary Elections, 1906-2013: Representation and Turnout Across Four Electoral Systems Jon H. Fiva ∗ Daniel M. Smithy February 15, 2017 Abstract Since gaining full independence in 1905, Norway has experienced more than a cen- tury of democratic elections, and has reformed its electoral system three times, most notably with the switch from a two-round runoff system to proportional rep- resentation in 1919. This article introduces a new data set featuring all candidates running for parliamentary (Storting) elections from 1906 to 2013, and document patterns over time and across electoral systems in the development of the party sys- tem; candidates' gender, age, occupation, and geographic ties; and voter turnout. Scholars interested in using the data set can gain access to it through the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD). ∗BI Norwegian Business School. E-mail: jon.h.fi[email protected] yHarvard University, E-mail: [email protected] 1 Norway is one of the world's oldest and most stable democracies. Officially, the starting point of modern Norwegian democracy is May 17, 1814, when the Constitution was adopted. The Constitution of 1814 is the now the oldest codified constitution in Europe, and is second globally only to that of the United States (Narud and Strøm 2011). Although formally in a union with Sweden from 1814, Norway enjoyed over a hundred years of quasi-independent growth and political development before full independence was declared in 1905. The separation was peaceful, and subsequently approved by a national referendum. A second referendum in 1905 established Norway as a constitutional monarchy. The first electoral system used for the Norwegian Storting (parliament), introduced by the 1814 Constitution, was based on indirect elections with plurality rule.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Committee on Public Petitions, Houses of the Oireachtas, Republic
    ^<1 AM p,I , .S' Ae RECEIVED r , ,1FEB2i2{ a Co GII C' CS, I ^'b' Via t\ SGIrbhis Thith an 01 ea htais @ Houses of the Oireachtas Service TITHE AN O^REACHTAZS . AN COMHCH01STE UM ACHAINtOCHA ON bPOBAL HOUSES OF THE OrREACHTAS JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PET^TiONS SUBM^SS^ON OF THE SECRETARIAT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PETITIONS - IRELAND ^NqUIRY INTO THE FUNCTIONS, PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES . OF THE STANDING COMMITrEE ON ENv^RONMENT AND PUBLrc AFFAIRS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL WESTERN AUSTRAL^A Houses of the Oireachtas Leinster House Kildare St Dublin 2 Do2 xR2o Ireland ,.,. February 2020 II'~ API ~~ ~, I -,/' -.<,, ,:; -.. t . Contents I . I n trod u ct io n ...,............................................................................................................ 4 2. Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Public Petitions 2 0 I I - 2 0 I 6 ..........................................................,.,,.....,.,,.,,,....................................... 5 3. Composition, Purpose, Powers of the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversig ht a rid Pu blic Petitions 201 I- 2016. .................................... 6 3.2 The Joint sub-Committee on Pu blic Petitions 2011 '20/6 ................,..,,,. 7 3.3 The Joint Sub-Committee on the Ombudsman 2011-2016. ................... 9 4. Joint Committee on Public Petitions 2016 - 2020 ...................................,. 10 4.2. Functions of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions 201.6-2020 .... 10 4.3. Powers of the Joint Committee on Public Petitions 201.6-2020 ..... 10 Figu re I : Differences of remit between Joint Committees ........,................,. 12 5 . Ad mis si bi lity of P etitio n s ...................,.., . .................... ....,,,, ... ... ......,.,,,.,.,....... 14 5.2 . In ad missi bin ty of Petitio ns .,,,........,,,,,,,,.., ................... ..,,,........ ., .,. .................. Is 5.3. Consideration of Petitio ns by the Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia
    AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA Amendments I through XXIX to the Constitution of Serbia Amendments I through XXIX are an integral part of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, which shall enter into force on the day of promulgation by the National Assembly. A Constitutional Act shall be passed to implement the Amendments I through XXIX of the Constitution. AMENDMENT I Competences The National Assembly shall: 1. adopt and amend the Constitution, 2. decide on changes concerning the borders of the Republic of Serbia, 3. call for the Republic referendum, 4. ratify international contracts when the obligation of their ratification is stipulated by the Law, 5. decide on war and peace and declare state of war and emergency, 6. supervise the work of security services, 7. enact laws and other general acts within the competence of the Republic of Serbia, 8. give previous approval for the Statute of the autonomous province, 9. adopt defense strategy, 10. adopt development plan and spatial plan, 11. adopt the Budget and financial statement of the Republic of Serbia, upon the proposal of the Government, 12. grant amnesty for criminal offenses. Within its election rights, the National Assembly shall: 1. elect the Government, supervise its work and decide on expiry of the term of office of the Government and ministers, 2. appoint and dismiss judges of the Constitutional Court, 3. appoint and dismiss five members of the High Judicial Council, five members of the High Prosecutorial Council, the Supreme Public Prosecutor of Serbia and public prosecutors, 4. appoint and dismiss the Governor of the National Bank of Serbia and supervise his/her work, 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges of Forced Migration in Serbia Position of Refugees, Internally Displaced Persons, Returnees and Asylum Seekers
    CHALLENGES OF FORCED MIGRATION IN SERBIA POSITION OF REFUGEES, INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS, RETURNEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS June 2011 The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Group 484 and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union 1 2 The goal of this publication is to raise the level of understanding of the complex problems of forced migration in Serbia in the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the context of the obligations in the process of European integrations, as well as to encourage cooperation and exchange of knowledge and experience among national and international institutions, civil society, the academic community and interested individuals. The policy paper on the status and problems of refugees, internally displaced persons, asylum seekers and returnees under readmission agreements, "The Challenges of Forced Migration in Serbia", coordinated by Group 484, was developed by a team composed of representatives of NGOs dealing with these issues: Humanitarian Centre for Integration and Tolerance, Praxis, Society for Peace, Development and Ecology, International Aid Network, Ecumenical Humanitarian Organization, the Red Cross of Serbia, the “Protecta” Centre for Civil Society Development , Serbian Democratic Forum, Novi Sad Humanitarian Centre, Union, Educational Centre Leskovac, Balkan Centre for Migration and Humanitarian Activities, Belgrade Centre for Human Rights, Belgrade Centre for Security Policy, and the Initiative for Development and Cooperation. NGO representatives participated in four working groups to agree on a common policy paper that should also be the basis for advocating for the rights of forced migrants in the state institutions of Serbia and the EU bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia and Montenegro
    ATTACKS ON JUSTICE – SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO Highlights Serbia and Montenegro (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until February 2003) entered the process of democratic transition, the creation of a system based on the rule of law, much later than other former socialist countries. On 4 February 2003 the new state union of Serbia and Montenegro was proclaimed. Under the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, there is only one instance of Serbia and Montenegro having a common judiciary – the Court of Serbia and Montenegro. Otherwise, each state – the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro – has its own internal courts system. A set of important judicial reforms came into force on 1 March 2002 in the Republic of Serbia and in July 2002 amendments to these laws were made that violate the principle of separation of powers and the independence and impartiality of the judiciary. In Montenegro, several laws relating to the judiciary were passed or amended during 2003. On 19 March 2003, the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia dismissed 35 judges from office, including seven Supreme Court judges, amid accusations that the judiciary had failed to take tougher measures in dealing with remnants of the former regime as well as in prosecuting organized crime. The legal system in Serbia and Montenegro is still characterized by a number of contradictory and inconsistent regulations, resulting in legal insecurity. BACKGROUND On March 2002 officials of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro signed a procedural agreement for the restructuring of relations between both states in Belgrade, in the presence of the high representative of the EU,.
    [Show full text]
  • How Sweden Is Governed Content
    How Sweden is governed Content The Government and the Government Offices 3 The Prime Minister and the other ministers 3 The Swedish Government at work 3 The Government Offices at work 4 Activities of the Government Offices 4 Government agencies 7 The budget process 7 The legislative process 7 The Swedish social model 9 A democratic system with free elections 9 The Swedish administrative model – three levels 10 The Swedish Constitution 10 Human rights 11 Gender equality 11 Public access 12 Ombudsmen 12 Scrutiny of the State 13 Sweden in the world 14 Sweden and the EU 14 Sweden and the United Nations 14 Nordic cooperation 15 Facts about Sweden 16 Contact 16 2 HOW SWEDEN IS GOVERNED The Government and the Government Offices The Prime Minister and the other ministers After each election the Speaker of the Riksdag (the Swedish Parliament) submits a proposal for a new Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is subsequently appoin­ ted by the Riksdag and tasked with forming a government. The Government, led by the Prime Minister, governs Sweden. The Government consists of the Prime Minister and a number of ministers, each with their own area of responsibility. The Swedish Government at work The Government governs Sweden and is the driving force in the process by which laws are created and amended, thereby influencing the development of society as a whole. However, the Government is accountable to the Riksdag and must have its support to be able to implement its policies. The Government governs the country, which includes: • submitting legislative proposals to the Riksdag; • implementing decisions taken by the Riksdag; • exercising responsibility for the budget approved by the Riksdag; • representing Sweden in the EU; • entering into agreements with other states; • directing central government activities; • taking decisions in certain administrative matters not covered by other agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
    [Show full text]
  • Serbian Institutions
    “It is My Dream to Leave This Place” Children with Disabilities in Serbian Institutions Copyright © 2016 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-6231-33603 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org JUNE 2016 ISBN: 978-1-6231-33603 “It is My Dream to Leave This Place” Children with Disabilities in Serbian Institutions Map .................................................................................................................................... I Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1p Life in Institutions .................................................................................................................... 6 Obligations ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]