Ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption in Lithuania A Review of the Compliance of the Lithuanian Legal and Institutional Framework Against Corruption Regional Community of Practice meeting Bratislava, October 2007

UNDP Lithuania project “Facilitation of the Ratification of the UN Convention against Corruption” Project initiated in 2005, carried out in 2006 Project initiated in 2005, carried out in 2006 Objective – to support country efforts aimed at ratification of the UNCAC through review of national legislative and institutional framework in light of its compliance to UNCAC. Objective – to support country efforts aimed at ratification of the UNCAC through review of national legislative and institutional framework in light of its compliance to UNCAC. Financed by UNDP and private sector (Statoil & Constructus) Financed by UNDP and private sector (Statoil & Constructus) Partners: TI Lit Chapter, Special Investigation Service Partners: TI Lit Chapter, Special Investigation Service

Review background Lithuania has in place independent specialized anti- corruption bodies Lithuania has in place independent specialized anti- corruption bodies Anti-corruption strategic policy document elaborated Anti-corruption strategic policy document elaborated Many aspects of the Lithuanian system lauded as examples of good practice Many aspects of the Lithuanian system lauded as examples of good practice UNCAC signed on Dec 10, 2003 (ratified on December 5, 2006) UNCAC signed on Dec 10, 2003 (ratified on December 5, 2006)

Review background Reforms being intense during accession to EU, stalled after joining EU Reforms being intense during accession to EU, stalled after joining EU CPI index 4.8 remains paralyzed for past three years CPI index 4.8 remains paralyzed for past three years Different corruption surveys reveal most corrupt areas: Different corruption surveys reveal most corrupt areas:  Health sector  Police (including traffic police)  Courts  Parliament, Government, Municipalities (public procurement, land regulation and management, construction permits)  Political parties (financing of)  Media

Opinion: most corrupt institutions in Lithuania (Map of corruption 2005) Note: According to their opinion, respondents were asked to identify most corrupt institutions in Lithuania Citizens (#1009)Heads of private companies (#519) 6 6 Health care institutions, med personnel 58.2% Police 47.3% Parliament 37.6% Courts 36.0% Government Office 24.2% Municipalities 21.5% Customs 14.0% President’s Office 13.4% Political parties, politicians 12.8% Land management units 11.3% Justice system 10.0% Civil servants 6.6% Educational institutions 6.5% Education system 4.8% Business 4.6% Mass media 2.6% Prosecutor’s Office 2.6% State tax inspection 2.5% Other 26.0% Police 38.3% Courts 34.6% Health care institutions, med personnel 33.5% Municipalities 31.3% Parliament 29.7% Government Office 23.6% State Privatization Office 16.8% President’s Office 16.6% Customs 14.3% Land management units 12.9% Political parties, politicians 12.2% Justice system 11.3% Mass media 5.7% Civil servants 5.7% All ministries 4.9% Education system 4.0% State tax inspection 3.9% Environment protection 3.7% Other 37.9%

In your opinion, how corrupt do you consider these public institutions? Corruption in certain public institutions Data taken from Survey on Media Corruption, 2007 (#502, Heads and representatives of different private organizations)

Review methodology Report is based on: Review of relevant national legislation Review of relevant national legislation Publicly available reports (GRECO, OECD, TI, EC, UNDP) Publicly available reports (GRECO, OECD, TI, EC, UNDP) Formal and informal meetings with representatives of national institutions (Special Investigation Service, Ministry of Justice, Prosecutor’s Office, District and Appeal Courts, State Tax Inspectorate, Public Procurement Agency), NGOs (TI Lit Ch, Free Market Institute, Human Rights Monitoring Institute, Civil Society Institute) Formal and informal meetings with representatives of national institutions (Special Investigation Service, Ministry of Justice, Prosecutor’s Office, District and Appeal Courts, State Tax Inspectorate, Public Procurement Agency), NGOs (TI Lit Ch, Free Market Institute, Human Rights Monitoring Institute, Civil Society Institute)

Review Structure Section 1: Overview of Lithuanian anti-corruption legislative and institutional framework Section 1: Overview of Lithuanian anti-corruption legislative and institutional framework (a) Key elements of legislative framework (b) Key elements of operational framework (c) Key elements of institutional framework (d) Suppression of corruption (e) Prevention of corruption

Review Structure Section 2: Analysis of the compliance of the legal framework in view of the provisions of the UNCAC Section 2: Analysis of the compliance of the legal framework in view of the provisions of the UNCAC (a) Preventive measure (UNCAC Chapter II) (b) Criminalization and law enforcement (UNCAC Chapter III) (c) International cooperation (UNCAC Chapter IV) (d) Assets recovery (UNCAC Chapter V)

Review Structure Section 3. Procedural and institutional issues in the application of anti-corruption legislation and policies Section 3. Procedural and institutional issues in the application of anti-corruption legislation and policies (a) Implementation of the National Anti-corruption Programme (b) Specialized anti-corruption bodies, their mandate, capacities and accountability (c) Procedural issues related to investigation and prosecution (d) Cooperation among national authorities

Section 4. Conclusions Gaps and weaknesses that require further attention: Strengthening criminal legislation (definition of nature of bribe, passive bribery, trade in influence, etc.) Strengthening criminal legislation (definition of nature of bribe, passive bribery, trade in influence, etc.) Strengthening the framework to facilitate reporting of corruption and protection of collaborators of justice (legislation on whistleblowers, incentives for collaboration with justice, etc.) Strengthening the framework to facilitate reporting of corruption and protection of collaborators of justice (legislation on whistleblowers, incentives for collaboration with justice, etc.) Proceeds of crime (criminalising illicit enrichment, adopt a at least a partial reversal burden, streamlining regulations on handling of frozen, seized and confiscated assets, etc.) Proceeds of crime (criminalising illicit enrichment, adopt a at least a partial reversal burden, streamlining regulations on handling of frozen, seized and confiscated assets, etc.) Procedural issues (streamlining internal procedures for the application of special investigative means, etc.) Procedural issues (streamlining internal procedures for the application of special investigative means, etc.)

Section 4. Conclusions Strengthening institutional cooperation and exchange of information in investigation as well as in the implementation of the NACP Strengthening institutional cooperation and exchange of information in investigation as well as in the implementation of the NACP Strengthening ethics in the public sector (Code of Conduct for politicians and high-level state officials, remove the provision of the Civil Code legalising the practice of accepting gifts in health and social care system, etc.) Strengthening ethics in the public sector (Code of Conduct for politicians and high-level state officials, remove the provision of the Civil Code legalising the practice of accepting gifts in health and social care system, etc.) Good governance measures (streamline burdensome regulations on licensing, construction and land regulation procedures) Good governance measures (streamline burdensome regulations on licensing, construction and land regulation procedures) Strengthening institutional capacities ( strengthen the COEC, as well as preventive and in particular the education and public outreach sections of the SIS) Strengthening institutional capacities ( strengthen the COEC, as well as preventive and in particular the education and public outreach sections of the SIS)

Section 4. Conclusions Strengthening accountability of specialised institutions towards and cooperation with the civil society and in particular with the private sector Strengthening accountability of specialised institutions towards and cooperation with the civil society and in particular with the private sector Ensuring that dual criminality requirement in respect of (passive) bribery of foreign and international does not preclude extradition or hinder international cooperation Ensuring that dual criminality requirement in respect of (passive) bribery of foreign and international does not preclude extradition or hinder international cooperation Institutionalize involvement of the private sector in the elaboration of policies and legislation Institutionalize involvement of the private sector in the elaboration of policies and legislation

“So what? or What’s next?” Government Office on one side and NGOs and private sector one other side are blaming each other for being passive Government Office on one side and NGOs and private sector one other side are blaming each other for being passive Government claims National anti-corruption strategy and action plan are being revised Government claims National anti-corruption strategy and action plan are being revised Government institutions requested to make risk self-analysis with an aim to identify gaps in combating corruption Government institutions requested to make risk self-analysis with an aim to identify gaps in combating corruption Government Office developed (?) methodology for such analysis Government Office developed (?) methodology for such analysis Special Investigation Service still responsible for external assessment Special Investigation Service still responsible for external assessment