DOCSLIB.ORG

2020 Report of Transparent Public Procurement Rating

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2020 Report of Transparent Public Procurement Rating 2020 Report of Transparent Public Procurement Rating 20 20 Project is Financially Supported by the Open Society Institute Budapest Foundation (OSI) The opinions expressed in this draft document belong to the Institute for Development of Freedom of Information (IDFI) and its partner organizations, and do not reflect the positions of Open Society Institute Budapest Foundation (OSI). Therefore, this organization is not responsible for the content of this report. Contact Information: 20, T. Shevchenko Street Georgia, Tbilisi, 0108 Tel: (+ 995) 32 2 92 15 14 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.idfi.ge Contents Main Findings 01 Statistical Analysis 03 Recommendations 06 Foreword, Structure and Methodology 08 Statistical Analysis 2016-2020 10 Average by Benchmark Indicator 11 Average by the Stage of Public Procurement 11 TPPR Rating 2019-2020 12 TPPR Rating 2016-2018 14 Rating by Benchmark Indicators 16 Transparency Environment 16 Uniformity of Legislative Framework 18 Efficiency 20 Transparency 22 Accountability and Integrity 24 Competitiveness and Impartiality 26 Rating by the Stages of Public Procurement Process 28 General Characteristics 28 Pre-Tendering Phase 30 Tendering Phase 32 Post-Tendering Phase 34 Country Evaluations 36 Europe 36 Albania 36 Armenia 40 Azerbaijan 43 Belarus 46 Bosnia and Herzegovina 49 Czech Republic 53 Georgia 54 Hungary 57 Lithuania 59 Moldova 61 Poland 64 Romania 67 Slovakia 69 Ukraine 72 Asia and Oceania 76 Indonesia 76 Kazakhstan 79 Kyrgyzstan 82 Mongolia 84 Papua New Guinea 87 Philippines 90 Tajikistan 92 Africa 95 Benin 95 Burundi 98 Côte d'Ivoire 102 Kenya 104 Malawi 107 Mozambique 110 Senegal 112 Tanzania 115 Togo 117 Uganda 120 Zimbabwe 122 Americas 125 Bolivia 125 Costa Rica 127 Ecuador 130 El Salvador 132 Guatemala 134 Mexico 137 Paraguay 139 Venezuela 142 Annex - Terminology 145 Main Findings Public Procurement Legislation of nearly all evaluated countries lay out the basic principles and general framework of the procurement process, makes it operational and indicates how the law must be applied to specific circumstances; In most of the cases, public procurement legislation is accessible in a single governmental website, however, access to these documents in an electronic machine-readable format still constitutes a challenge in many participant countries; Public procurement legislation in all evaluated countries apply to all state budget entities and local government entities, however, the approach varies when it comes to applying the legislation to Legal Entities of Public Law (LEPL), state-owned companies and state non-commercial legal entities; The scope of coverage of public procurement legislation in various countries includes all sectors of the economy where competition is possible and exemptions are clearly listed in the legislation; In all cases there is a single or several state bodies responsible for managing public procurement, however, in most of the cases these bodies are not entitled to have own income in addition to state funding; In many cases electronic means still do not constitute the primary method of conducting public procurement; In a number of cases legislation sets preferences for domestic suppliers; In all participants countries, the legislation ensures the right to review in the procurement process for tender participants, however, problems are evident in regards to applying the right to potential suppliers as well as to the general public; In most of the cases, there is an independent review body in the country with the authority to review complaints and grant remedies, however, civil society members are usually excluded from its composition. TPPR-IDFI 01 Findings by the Stages of Public Procurement Process Most of the TPPR participant countries demonstrated a lack of transparency at the post-tendering stage of public procurement compared to the earlier stages of pre- tendering and tendering; Publishing information on sub-contractors, contract amendments as well as contract performance indicators proved to be particularly problematic; Countries usually publish information on tender notices, however, access to the information in a machine-readable format is highly limited; Approach to publishing submitted applications, bids and decision of tender committees varies across the countries; In cases when evaluation criteria include both price and quality, the winner is rarely chosen using a cost-effectiveness approach consisting of three factors: life-cycle cost, best price-quality ration, environmental and/or social costs; Access to submitted complaints and dispute resolution is problematic, especially in machine-readable electronic format; Public procurement annual plans are still not published by many TPPR participant countries. Findings by the Benchmark Indicators Among the six benchmark indicators, Transparency proved to be the most problematic direction of public procurement regulations among the countries covered by TPPR. This is largely explained by the fact that states still face significant problems in the direction of publishing post-tendering information. As for the pre-tendering and tendering phases, information is rarely published in electronic machine-readable format; Lower scores in the benchmark indicator of Transparency was one of the major factors negatively affecting the overall evaluations of the countries; The least problematic benchmark indicator was the Uniformity of the Legislative Framework since most of the TPPR participant countries have adopted the legislation directed at regulating public procurement, which includes the main principles of conducting state purchases and the legislation is applicable to a wide range of actors determined by the legislation; Competitiveness and Impartiality proved to be another well-performing benchmark indicator, which can be explained by the fact that most of the legislations in TPPR participant countries avoid including in itself regulations that would threaten competitiveness and impartiality. However, the picture of implementing these regulations in practice could be significantly different. 02 TPPR-IDFI Statistical Analysis Based on the overall TPPR evaluation of the participant countries Ukraine leads the TPP rating in the evaluation of 2019-2020. This is due to the fact that major reforms have been implemented in the country in the last two years, which also addressed the shortcoming indicated in the previous TPPR evaluation of Ukraine. During the last years, important positive changes have been introduced in the area of public procurement in Moldova. Thus, the country improved its position in the rating and moved from the 12th to the second position. Even though a number of positive developments have been seen in Georgia as well, the progress was not as significant as in the case of Ukraine and Moldova, thus Georgia holds the third position in the rating of 2019-2020. TPPR participant countries reaching the benchmark of 80% in the evaluation of 2019-2020 are Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Philippines and Romania. Some of the poorest performing countries in the TPPR evaluation of 2019-2020 are Tajikistan, Papua New Guinea, Burundi, Venezuela, Malawi, Azerbaijan, El Salvador and Zimbabwe. The overall evaluations of the given countries in the rating are below 60%. It should be noted that Armenia is not included in the list of countries with poor TPPR performance in the rating of 2019-2020. From the bottom of the rating in 2016-2018 Armenia moved to the middle of the rating. The reason for the latter is the reform executed in the public procurement system of Armenia, thus the evaluation of the country increased accordingly. Transparency Environment Since the benchmark indicator of Transparency Environment includes 5 questions/indicators only, over ten countries showed 100% performance in the area. These countries include European countries as well as the Philippines, Costa Rica, Bolivia, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and El Salvador. TPPR-IDFI 03 The countries showing relatively poor performance in this direction in the evaluation of 2019-2020 are Togo, Azerbaijan and Belarus. Uniformity of Legislative Framework Based on the TPPR evaluation in 2019-2020 up to 10 countries reached the benchmark of 90% in the area of Uniformity of Legislative Framework. The list of well-performing countries is led by Ukraine and Georgia. Georgia held the second position in the evaluation of 2016-2018 as well, while Ukraine improved its position and moved to first place in the evaluation of 2019-2020. Some of the weak performing countries in the benchmark indicator in both periods were Guatemala, Burundi, Cota Rica and the Czech Republic. Efficiency The leading countries in the benchmark indicator of Efficiency in 2019-2020 were Ukraine and Romania with a 100% rating. Moldova and Lithuania also scored high in the area. In the evaluation of 2016-2018 together with Romania and Lithuania, Albania, Paraguay and Philippines were leading the list, however, they moved down the rating which was caused by the advancement in the area of other TPPR participant countries. Transparency Ukraine leads the TPPR rating in the benchmark indicator of Transparency in the evaluation covering the periods of 2016-2018 as well as 2019-2020. Georgia is holding one of the leading positions in both of the evaluations as well. In 2019-2020 Moldova moved to the top of the rating and held the second position with a score of 96.67%. Due to the advancement of these countries in the benchmark indicator of Transparency, Costa Rica moved from the second position in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evolution Way and Development History of Criminal Procedure Law in Azerbaijan
    6/2018 КРИМІНАЛЬНИЙ ПРОЦЕС УДК 343.01 Asif oglu Gadirov Khanoglan, PhD in Juridical Sciences, Associate Professor of Academy of Public Administration EVOLUTION WAY AND DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW IN AZERBAIJAN The article discusses some of the issues of theoretical and practical problems сonstitutional legal inves- tigation of criminal proceedings in the Azerbaijan Republic is characterized by a number of methodological characteristics. It is noted that, from the legislative point of view, the definition of criminal proceedings can’ot be considered complete. For this reason, the author, referring to the theoretical and legal literature, it considers it necessary to bring clarity to various concepts in criminal proceedings. Key words: law, criminal procedure, constitutional law, theory, practice Regarding the research of the history of in its hands; individual rights were nearly on a criminal procedure law, M.Jafarguliyev de- zero level. Challenges for reforms have already notes that undergoing a unique rich historical increased. These challenges had become more development way, the criminal procedure law intensive after defeat of Russia by France, Eng- has become the basis of the national legislature land and Ottoman Empire in Crimean war. Czar regulating implementation of the justice court Alexander II preferred to carry out reforms by at present time. peaceful and compromise way, rather than a vi- Economic and political liberalism typical for olent and revolution way. the XIX century was reflected in codification In 1864 czar Alexander II adopted a new work and firstly it put forward determination of project called “Great Reforms” and stimulat- the general framework of the legal development ing acceleration of development of the empire.
    [Show full text]
  • Administrative Procedures: Kazakhstan and Foreign Experience
    Universal Decimal Classification 342.92 Podoprigora R.A. Administrative Procedures: Kazakhstan and Foreign Experience Professor of Caspian University (Almaty, Kazakhstan), Doctor of Law. The article is dedicated to the issues of the current status and development of ad- ministrative procedures in Kazakhstan. The author also considers difficulties which can arise in the preparation of the draft of the Law On Administrative Procedures and pos- sibilities for implementation of foreign experience. Keywords: Kazakhstan, administrative law, administrative procedures. The main administrative and legal problematics in Kazakhstan has recently focused on three issues: administrative procedures, administrative justice and administrative violations. The vast majority of conferences, round tables and discussions, one way or another, is connect- ed to these issues. At that, it is interesting that many local lawyers, professional legal communities, and state structures consider attention to administrative violations as top-priority. Much less atten- tion is paid to other various administrative and legal institutions. It should be recognized that, in many ways due to our foreign colleagues and various pro- jects with different level if success working in Kazakhstan, the most important issues of admin- istrative law (administrative procedures and administrative justice) are put on the agenda, turn into draft laws and are constantly included in the programs of legal reforms. 2 This approach is very illustrative. For many Kazakhstani lawyers of different levels ad- ministrative law has remained a public administration right, a kind of truncheon to impact on citizens and organizations. Another purpose of administrative law is restraining of public ad- ministration, protecting the rights of citizens in the public sphere remains in the background.
    [Show full text]
  • Support to the Anti-Corruption Strategy of Azerbaijan (AZPAC)
    Support to the anti-corruption strategy of Azerbaijan (AZPAC) Technical Paper on Compliance of the Legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan with International Anti-corruption Conventions Prepared by: Mr Bostjan Penko (Slovenija) PC –TC (2009) 3 Support to the Anti-corruption Strategy of Azerbaijan (AZPAC) A project supported by USAID and implemented by Council of Europe in cooperation with the Commission on Combating Corruption of Azerbaijan For more information, please contact: Technical Co-operation Department Tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 76 Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Fax: + 33 3 90 21 56 50 Affairs Email: [email protected] Council of Europe 67075 Strasbourg CEDEX France This document has been produced with the financial support of the USAID. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinions of the Council of Europe. 2 Table of Contents: 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................4 2 General observations....................................................................................................................5 3 Compliance report ........................................................................................................................6 3.1 United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) ...........................................6 3.2 Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption .....................................34 3.3 Council of Europe Civil
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 20 June 2011
    United Nations A/66/93 General Assembly Distr.: General 20 June 2011 Original: English Sixty-sixth session Item 85 of the preliminary list* The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction Report of the Secretary-General Summary The present report has been prepared pursuant to General Assembly resolution 65/33, by which the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to prepare a report on the basis of information and observations received from Member States and relevant observers, as appropriate, on the scope and application of universal jurisdiction, including, where appropriate, information on the relevant applicable international treaties, their domestic legal rules and judicial practice. * A/66/50. 11-38074 (E) 270711 *1138074* A/66/93 Contents Page I. Introduction ................................................................... 3 II. Scope and application of universal jurisdiction on the basis of the relevant domestic legal rules, applicable international treaties and judicial practice: comments by Governments .... 3 A. Basic legal rules ........................................................... 3 B. Conditions, restrictions or limitations to the exercise of jurisdiction ................ 13 III. Scope and application of universal jurisdiction: comments by observers ................. 20 IV. Nature of the issue for discussion: specific comments by States ........................ 28 Tables 1. List of crimes mentioned in the comments by Governments, concerning which universal jurisdiction (including other bases of jurisdiction) is established by their codes ........... 32 2. Specific legislation relevant to the subject, based on information submitted by Governments .. 39 3. Relevant treaties which were referred to by Governments, including treaties containing aut dedere aut judicare provisions ................................................ 43 2 11-38074 A/66/93 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Corruption Reforms in Azerbaijan 4Th Round of Monitoring of the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan
    Fighting Corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia Anti-corruption reforms in Azerbaijan 4th round of monitoring of the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan OECD ANTI-CORRUPTION NETWORK FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA Anti-Corruption Reforms in AZERBAIJAN Fourth Round of Monitoring of the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan 2016 About the OECD The OECD is a forum in which governments compare and exchange policy experiences, identify good practices in light of emerging challenges, and promote decisions and recommendations to produce better policies for better lives. The OECD’s mission is to promote policies that improve economic and social well-being of people around the world. Find out more at www.oecd.org. About the Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Established in 1998, the Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Asia (ACN) supports its member countries in their efforts to prevent and fight corruption. It provides a regional forum for the promotion of anti-corruption activities, the exchange of information, elaboration of best practices and donor coordination via regional meetings and seminars, peer-learning programmes, and thematic projects. ACN also serves as the home for the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan (IAP). Find out more at www.oecd.org/corruption/acn/. About the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan The Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan is a sub-regional peer-review programme launched in 2003 in the framework of the ACN. It supports anti-corruption reforms in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan through country reviews and continuous monitoring of participating countries’ implementation of recommendations to assist in the implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption and other international standards and best practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Karabakh: Vision
    KARABAKH: VISION “We are ready to guarantee the security of the Armenian community of Karabakh. I stressed, [that] Baku will not allow the community to face any danger” Ilham Aliyev President of Azerbaijan September 2005 BAKU-2011 | 2 | KARABAKH: VISION KARABAKH: VISION | 3 | CONTENTS: Preface 5 THE HISTORY OF AZERBAIJAN: General Information 8 KARABAKH: Historical Conditions 12 CURRENT SITUATION IN KARABAKH: Two Communities – One Vision 17 INTERNATIONAL LAW: Legitimacy of “Unrecognized State” 23 Concluding Remarks 26 | 4 | KARABAKH: VISION KARABAKH: VISION | 5 | Preface The Nagorno-Karabakh region of the Repub- been top agenda item for the Government of lic of Azerbaijan is part of the geographical Azerbaijan with the following priorities: area called Garabagh (Qarabağ). The name 1) liberation of all occupied territories; consists of two Azerbaijani words: “qara” 2) return of forcibly displaced persons to (black) and “bağ” (garden).1 The geographi- their places of origin; cal area of Karabakh covers the lands from 3) establishment of long-lasting peace and the Araz River in the south to the Kur River stability in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of in the north, and from the junction of the the Republic of Azerbaijan, which willpro- Kur and Araz Rivers in the east to the eastern mote in term the peace in the entire South ranges of the Lesser Caucasus in the west. Caucasus. Further continuation of such kind of pro- tracted conflicts is a major security threat in the region of South Caucasus, as one can see on the example of Five-Day war in Georgia (August 2008) that it can easily can turn into a flash fire.
    [Show full text]
  • Law of Azerbaijan Republic on Border Troops (Extract)
    Law of Azerbaijan Republic on Border Troops (extract) Chapter 1 General Provisions Article 1. Border Troops of Azerbaijan Republic Border Troops of Azerbaijan Republic (hereinafter referred to as Border Troops) secure protection and inviolability of state border of Azerbaijan Republic (hereinafter referred to as State Border) Article 2. Legislation on Border Troops Legislation on Border Troops consists of the Constitution of Azerbaijan Republic, present Law, other legislative acts of Azerbaijan Republic, decrees of the President of Azerbaijan Republic, resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Azerbaijan Republic, international and intergovernmental treaties and agreements regulating relations in the field of protection of state borders, normative acts of relevant bodies of Azerbaijan Republic. Article 3. Basic principles of the Border Troops Activities of Border Troops is conducted on the basis of principles of law, transparency, respect for human rights and freedoms, close relation with government bodies, NGOs, personnel of relevant enterprises and population, and organization of building military forces. Article 4. Objectives of Border Troops Border Troops: 1) protects the state borders in a defined order; 2) prevents all efforts aiming at illegal modification of state borders; 3) overcomes military attacks of troops or criminal groups of foreign countries to the territory of Azerbaijan Republic, protects people, state property, private property from those military and other actions and prevents this kind of actions; 4) prevents illegal
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Azerbaijan Republic on the Non-Governmental Organizations
    THE LAW OF AZERBAIJAN REPUBLIC ON THE NON- GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1. Purpose of the given law 1.1 This law regulates the relations with creation and functioning of public unions and foundations. 1.2 The definition of "the non-governmental organization" of this law is applicable to public unions and foundations. 1.3 This law defines non-governmental organizations as legal entities to the rules of their establishment, activity, reorganization and liquidation, as well as rules of their functioning, managing, relation to the government. 1.4 This law does not concern political parties, trade unions, religious associations, local self-government institutions and public organizations, which are regulated by other laws. Article 2. Non-Governmental Organization 2.1 Public union, as it is settled as aims of founding documents, is a voluntary, self- controlled, non-governmental organization established under the initiative of several physical and (or) legal entities with common interests, whose main purpose is not to gain profit as a result of the activity and share it between the members of the organization. 2.2 Foundation is a non-membership non-governmental organization established under the voluntary property benefiting of one or several physical and (or) legal entities with social, charitable, cultural, education or other public-benefit purposes. 2.3 Non-governmental organization can be formed and function with the purposes not forbidden by the Constitution and laws of Azerbaijan Republic. 2.4 Non-governmental organization cannot participate at the presidential, parliament and municipality elections in the Azerbaijan Republic as well as provide financial and other support to political parties.
    [Show full text]
  • ORGANIC AGRICULTURE in AZERBAIJAN Current Status and Potentials for Future Development
    ORGANIC AGRICULTURE ISBN 978-92-5-130100-5 IN AZERBAIJAN 978 9251 301005 Current status and potentials XXXX/1/12.17 for future development ORGANIC AGRICULTURE IN AZERBAIJAN Current status and potentials for future development Uygun AKSOY, İsmet BOZ, Hezi EYNALOV, Yagub GULIYEV Food and Agriculture Organization United Nations Аnkara, 2017 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-13100-5 © FAO, 2017 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this infor- mation product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, down- loaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Status Report on Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency Plans
    Report Status Report on Integrated Water Resources Management and Water Efficiency Plans Prepared for the 16th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development - May 2008 UN Water is made up of the UN agencies, programmes and funds that have a significant role in tackling global water concerns. It also includes major non-UN partners who cooperate with them in advancing progress towards the water- related goals of the Decade Water for Life and Millennium Declaration. It is the official United Nations mechanism for follow-up of the water-related decisions reached at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development and the Millen- nium Development Goals and supports Member States in their efforts to achieve water and sanitation goals and targets. Its work encompasses all aspects of freshwater, including surface and groundwater resources and the interface between fresh and sea water. How to cite: UN-Water (2008). Status Report on IWRM and Water Efficiency Plans for CSD16 Acknowledgements: This is a Report of UN-Water undertaken by its Task Force on IWRM Monitoring and Reporting. Gordon Young, supported by Binay Shah and Fred Kimaite, drafted the Report on behalf of the Task Force with direction, comments and advice from the members and partners of UN-Water. Drafting, publishing and printing of the Report was funded by contributions to UN-Water from DFID. Abbreviations and Acronyms AfDB African Development Bank CSD Commission on Sustainable Development DFID Department for International Development (UK) EU European Union GWP Global Water
    [Show full text]
  • (BTC) Host Government Agreement-Azerbaijan Pdf
    HOST GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN AND AMONG THE GOVERNMENT OF THE AZERBAIJAN REPUBLIC AND THE STATE OIL COMPANY OF THE AZERBAIJAN REPUBLIC BP EXPLORATION (CASPIAN SEA) LTD. STATOIL BTC CASPIAN AS RAMCO HAZAR ENERGY LIMITED TURKIYE PETROLLERI A.O. UNOCAL BTC PIPELINE, LTD. ITOCHU OIL EXPLORATION (AZERBAIJAN) INC. DELTA HESS (BTC) LIMITED HOU03:648162.13 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................2 ARTICLE 2 AUTHORITY......................................................................................................3 ARTICLE 3 AGREEMENT, TERM AND DURATION........................................................4 ARTICLE 4 GRANT OF RIGHTS..........................................................................................7 ARTICLE 5 GOVERNMENT GUARANTIES.......................................................................8 ARTICLE 6 REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES .................................................10 ARTICLE 7 CERTAIN COVENANTS AND CONSENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT .....12 ARTICLE 8 TAXES ..............................................................................................................18 ARTICLE 9 COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE ...............................................31 ARTICLE 10 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.........................................................................33 ARTICLE 11 SECURITY .......................................................................................................34
    [Show full text]
  • The International Journal of Not-For-Profit Law
    The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law Volume 11, Number 3 May 2009 A Quarterly Publication of The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law 1126 16th Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 452-8600 www.icnl.org Publisher International Center for Not-for-Profit Law 1126 16th Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 452-8600 www.icnl.org Editor: Stephen Bates Senior Editor: Douglas Rutzen Contributing Editor: Stephan Klingelhofer Production Editor: Ivan Gan The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, ISSN 1556-5157, is a forum for the discussion of civil society, philanthropy, nongovernmental organizations, and the law, published quarterly by the International Center for Not- for-Profit Law, www.icnl.org . Based in Washington, D.C., the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law promotes an enabling environment for civil society and public participation around the world. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, its affiliates, or its funders. Except where otherwise noted, all contents copyright 2009 by the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law. The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law Volume 11, Number 3 May 2009 Letter from the Editor ………………………………….…………………………............ 4 EUROPE Cross-Border Issues in the Regulation of Charities: Experiences from the UK and Ireland Oonagh B. Breen, Patrick Ford, and Gareth G. Morgan ....................................... 5 Think Tanks in Central and Eastern Europe in Urgent Need of a Code of Ethics Goran Buldioski .................................................................................................... 42 Trading—A Survivor’s Guide: Guidance Notes on Charity Trading in the UK Pesh Framjee .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]