The lack of clear procedures and mechanisms for parliamentary oversight, as well as insufficient transparency, are major obstacles to the effective execution of parliamentary control over the activities of public institutions and anti-corruption efforts. This is the conclusion of the report "Parliamentary Oversight Activities in the Last Two Years: Efficiency and Challenges in Public and Anti-Corruption Institution Reporting," presented by the Center for Analysis and Prevention of Corruption (CAPC) on Wednesday, at the Club of Investigative Journalists of the Center for Investigative Journalism (CIJM). The authors analyzed the period from 2022-2023.

The monitoring identified deficiencies related to the absence of a unified framework for authority reports, as well as the lack of unified procedures or structure for the reports.

"You have to check each law regulating the activity of the respective public authority to determine whether that authority needs to present a report to Parliament, which complicates the process. Also, there is virtually no clear model or structure for a report, with these reports differing in structure and content," explained Viorel Pîrvan, a CAPC expert.

Similarly, deficiencies were noted in the planning of the parliamentary control process and its implementation — there are no regulations or procedures regarding the trajectory of reports in Parliament — neither for hearings in parliamentary committees nor in the plenary session of Parliament.

The expert also mentioned issues related to monitoring the implementation of recommendations made to authorities after the hearings of public institutions' reports, as well as the lack of responses from public authorities regarding actions taken or not taken.

"An important gap identified during the monitoring is that the data on the Parliament's website are very difficult to access. It is very hard to systematize, track, and analyze the data published by Parliament — either they don't publish them, or they are published, but incomplete or spread across different sections of the website. Or the information in the annual reports is rather dry or published with delays," noted Pîrvan.

Regarding parliamentary control over anti-corruption institutions, Viorel Pîrvan emphasized that, according to the law, there are five institutions responsible for anti-corruption and integrity: the National Anti-Corruption Center, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, the National Integrity Authority, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the Intelligence and Security Service. The main recommendation for these institutions is to give more attention to their activities.

"The CNA and ANI receive attention, and their reports go through the committees and are thoroughly examined. However, as for the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office — it does not report to Parliament, with fragments of its activity being included in the General Prosecutor's Office report. As for the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Intelligence and Security Service, information is generally absent," explained the CAPC expert.

According to him, since the law clearly states that there are five anti-corruption institutions, all five should report to ensure clarity regarding their activities and to ensure that anti-corruption policies are effective.