ESR
2.2.5.3.
The excessive level of discretion in the exercise of powers by the Antimonopoly Committee has been eliminated, in particular when it comes to determining:
the commencement of examination of a case involving a violation of the requirements of legislation on the protection of economic competition, the estimated timeframe for consideration of such a case and, if necessary, the possibility of extending this timeframe with appropriate justification;
the timeframe for verifying information about illegally obtained government aid;
ways to improve the mechanism for appointing and replacing state commissioners responsible for examining cases involving violations of the legislation on protection of economic competition, taking into account their professional qualities, experience, impartiality, independence, legality and validity of their decisions;
ways to improve approaches to determining the amount of the fine and the procedure for calculating the fine imposed for violations of the legislation on protection of economic competition
Problem solving:
2.2.5. Insufficient information about the activities of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine and the fact that it is vested with a number of discretionary powers complicate public control over its activities and cause a high level of corruption risks. There is no effective program to mitigate the liability of cartel members who have reported the cartel and provided evidence.
Deadlines for all measures within ESR
Implementation of SACP measures within ESR
Implementation of SACP measures within the scope of the Problem by main main performers
National Agency on Corruption Prevention
Summarized general information on Measures
Indicators of achievement of ESR
Total number of indicators – 2
Indicators fully achieved – 0
Partially achieved indicators – 0
Indicators with a score of 0% – 2
Summarized general information about Achievement Indicators
| № | Indicators | Weight (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
A law has taken effect, which has eliminated the excessive level of discretion in the exercise of the powers of the Antimonopoly Committee, specifically by: a) establishing the maximum time frame for examining a case involving violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition for each kind of violations (8 percent); b) establishing an exhaustive list of grounds and the procedure for extending the time frame for examining a case involving violations of the legislation on the protection of economic competition, as well as the maximum amount of time by which the time frame for examination of this case can be extended (8 percent); c) establishing a transparent and nondiscriminatory procedure for limiting the time frame during which the parties to the case can review the case files, as well as the procedure for determining the relevant time frame (8 percent); d) providing for the possibility of (and defining the conditions for) suspension of case proceedings for the duration of examination of violations listed in Clauses 13-15 of Article 50 of the Law of Ukraine On the Protection of Economic Competition, which commenced as part of the examination of the relevant case, as well as for the duration of examination of other cases (involving obstructions created during inspections, failure to appear when summoned by agencies of the Committee to offer explanations) (8 percent); e) obligating the Antimonopoly Committee—where the Committee has looked into a complaint about unlawful government aid or misuse of government aid and has decided against initiating a case involving government aid—to provide the complainant with exhaustive and substantiated information about the grounds and motives for this decision (8 percent); f) establishing the procedure for designating and replacing state commissioners responsible for examining cases involving violations of legislation on the protection of economic competition or cases involving government aid (8 percent); g) providing for the right of the parties to the case to motion for disqualification of state commissioners responsible for investigating the cases, and establishing the list of conditions to be met in order for such motions for disqualification to be granted (8 percent); h) setting forth the principles of determining the amounts of fines within the limits established by legislation on the protection of economic competition (7 percent); i) stipulating that the procedure for determining the amount of fines shall be determined via a bylaw normative legal act and shall provide for the determination of the base fine amount for each respondent as well as subsequent adjustment of the base fine amount bearing in mind the severity, duration, and scale of the violation, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances (7 percent). |
70% |
| 2 |
the results of the expert survey have demonstrated that: a) more than 75 percent of experts on the regulation of the economy and business evaluate the quality of legal regulation implemented pursuant to subclause 1 of clause 2.2.5.3 as high or very high (30 percent); b) more than 50 percent of experts on the regulation of the economy and business evaluate the quality of legal regulation implemented pursuant to subclause 1 of clause 2.2.5.3 as high or very high (20 percent); c) more than 25 percent of experts on the regulation of the economy and business evaluate the quality of legal regulation implemented pursuant to subclause 1 of clause 2.2.5.3 as high or very high (10 percent). |
30% |