Feedback from the public

ESR

2.1.4.5. The regulations on transparent planning and allocation of budget resources in the judicial system based on objective and clearly defined criteria have been introduced; the operations of the State Judicial Administration have been audited, particularly in matters of allocation of financial and economic resources for courts and judicial authorities, management of state-owned properties controlled by the State Judicial Administration

Problem solving:

2.1.4. Presence of corruption risks attributable to gaps and flaws of legislation in the system of justice

Deadlines for all measures within ESR

01.03.2023 - 31.12.2025

Implementation of SACP measures within ESR

Total number of measures – 7
1 2 4
Partially implemented In progress Not started

Implementation of SACP measures within the scope of the Problem by main main performers

High Council of Justice

0%
4

State Judicial Administration of Ukraine

50%
2

Accounting Chamber of Ukraine

0%
1

Summarized general information on Measures

№ Name of the measure The main implementer Co-implementors Performance indicator Monitoring results (latest) Статус
1 2.1.4.5.1 Conducting activities of state external financial control (audit) over the spending of state budget funds on the administration of justice by local courts and courts of appeal and the functioning of agencies and institutions of the justice system, including in matters of the allocation of financial and economic resources for courts and judicial authorities, management of state-owned properties controlled by the State Judicial Administration (SJA), supporting the creation and operation of specific subsystems (modules) of the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System Accounting Chamber of Ukraine The report on the findings of state external financial control (audit) has been approved and published.
There is progress in the implementation of the measure
In progress
2 2.1.4.5.2 Drafting standards of staffing, funding, logistics, and supply of other resources for courts State Judicial Administration of Ukraine Draft standards of staffing, funding, logistics, and supply of other resources for courts have been developed and publicized.
The measure was implemented on time, but partially
Partially implemented
3 2.1.4.5.3 Holding consultations on the draft standards of staffing, funding, logistics, and supply of other resources for courts with the participation of the High Council of Justice, the State Judicial Administration, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, the Council of Judges of Ukraine, judges, NGOs, international organizations, and participants of international technical assistance projects; obtaining expert opinions High Council of Justice Вища кваліфікаційна комісія суддів України, Державна судова адміністрація України, Рада суддів України At least one discussion of the draft standards of staffing, funding, logistics, and supply of other resources for courts has been held with the participation of representatives of the High Council of Justice, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, the Council of Judges of Ukraine, judges, NGOs, international organizations, and participants of international technical assistance projects.
Implementation of the measure has started on time
In progress
4 2.1.4.5.4 Revising and approving the standards of staffing, funding, logistics, and supply of other resources for courts, and publicizing them High Council of Justice Standards of staffing, funding, logistics, and supply of other resources for courts have been approved and publicized. Not started
5 2.1.4.5.5 Drafting the Regulation on transparent planning and allocation of budget resources in the judicial system based on objective and clearly defined criteria, particularly taking into account the standards of staffing, funding, logistics, and supply of other resources for courts State Judicial Administration of Ukraine The draft Regulation on transparent planning and allocation of budget resources in the judicial system based on objective and clearly defined criteria has been developed and publicized. Not started
6 2.1.4.5.6 Holding consultations on the draft Regulation on transparent planning and allocation of budget resources in the judicial system based on objective and clearly defined criteria with the participation of the High Council of Justice, the State Judicial Administration, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, the Council of Judges of Ukraine, judges, NGOs, international organizations, and participants of international technical assistance projects; obtaining expert opinions High Council of Justice Вища кваліфікаційна комісія суддів України, Державна судова адміністрація України, Рада суддів України At least one discussion of the draft Regulation on transparent planning and allocation of budget resources in the judicial system based on objective and clearly defined criteria has been conducted with the participation of representatives of the High Council of Justice, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, the Council of Judges of Ukraine, judges, NGOs, international organizations, and participants of international technical assistance projects. Not started
7 2.1.4.5.7 Revising and approving the Regulation on transparent planning and allocation of budget resources in the judicial system based on objective and clearly defined criteria, and publicizing it High Council of Justice The Regulation on transparent planning and allocation of budget resources in the judicial system based on objective and clearly defined criteria has been approved and publicized. Not started

Indicators of achievement of ESR

Total number of indicators – 5

Indicators fully achieved – 0

Partially achieved indicators – 0

Indicators with a score of 0% – 5

Summarized general information about Achievement Indicators

№ Indicators Weight (%)
1 Standards of staffing, funding, logistics, and supply of other resources for courts have been approved and are used. 20%
2 The regulations on transparent planning and allocation of budget resources in the judicial system based on objective and clearly defined criteria, particularly taking into account the standards of staffing, funding, logistics, and supply of other resources for courts have been approved and are used. 20%
3 The results of activities of state external financial control (audit) over the spending of state budget funds on the administration of justice by local courts and courts of appeal and the functioning of agencies and institutions of the justice system, including in matters of the allocation of financial and economic resources for courts and judicial authorities, management of state-owned properties controlled by the State Judicial Administration (SJA), supporting the creation and operation of specific subsystems (modules) of the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System have been approved and made public. 20%
4 At least 90 percent of recommendations (proposals) issued on the basis of the results of activities of state external financial control (audit) over the spending of state budget funds on the administration of justice by local courts and courts of appeal and the functioning of agencies and institutions of the justice system, including in matters of the allocation of financial and economic resources for courts and judicial authorities, management of state-owned properties controlled by the State Judicial Administration (SJA), supporting the creation and operation of specific subsystems (modules) of the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System have been implemented. 20%
5 at least 80 percent of justice experts estimate that:
a) the regulation on transparent planning and allocation of budget resources in the judicial system are based on objective and clearly defined criteria, particularly taking into account the standards of staffing, funding, logistics, and supply of other resources for courts (5 percent);
b) the regulations on transparent planning and allocation of budget resources in the judicial system based on objective and clearly defined criteria are all-encompassing and regulate all of the relevant issues (5 percent);
c) the findings of the audit of State Judicial Administration activities at the very least cover the issues of the effectiveness of spending of funds on supplying financial and economic resources for courts and the judicial authorities, and the management of state properties controlled by the State Judicial Administration (5 percent);
d) the recommendations based on the findings of the audit of State Judicial Administration activities have been implemented by at least 90 percent (5 percent). 		20%

Key sources of assessment:

Additional sources of information: