ESR
2.4.2.1. Instruments have been put in place to prevent the negative impact of privatization authorities and organizers of privatization auctions on the number of bidders and competition.
Problem solving:
2.4.2. Insufficient transparency of privatization procedures and failure by buyers to comply with the terms of the sale of the privatized asset
Deadlines for all measures within ESR
01.03.2023 -
31.03.2024
Implementation of SACP measures within ESR
Total number of measures –
2
1
1
Implemented
In progress
Implementation of SACP measures within the scope of the Problem by main main performers
Ministry of Economy of Ukraine
0%
1
State Property Fund of Ukraine
100%
1
Summarized general information on Measures
Indicators of achievement of ESR
Total number of indicators – 4
Indicators fully achieved – 0
Partially achieved indicators – 0
Indicators with a score of 0% – 4
Summarized general information about Achievement Indicators
№ | Indicators | Weight (%) |
---|---|---|
1 | The law that updates the list of state-owned facilities that are not subject to privatization has taken effect. | 30% |
2 | The Procedure for Holding Electronic Auctions to Sell Assets of Major Privatization and Choosing the Winning Bidder Based on the Outcome of the Electronic Auction has been approved. | 20% |
3 |
The average number of bidders in privatization auctions (per privatization lot) is: a) no less than six (30 percent); b) no less than five (25 percent); c) no less than four (20 percent); d) no less than three (15 percent); e) no less than two (10 percent). |
30% |
4 |
at least 80 percent of experts on the regulation of the economy and businesses estimate that: a) the procedures for transferring assets to the State Property Fund and other privatization authorities are fully or mostly optimal and efficient (4 percent); b) in practice, the transfer of assets to the State Property Fund and other privatization authorities always or mostly takes place without unreasonable delays (3 percent); c) the legislation has been completely or mostly rid of provisions that caused a negative impact of privatization authorities and organizers of privatization auctions on the number of bidders and competition (3 percent); d) in practice, the negative impact of privatization authorities and organizers of privatization auctions on the number of bidders and competition is always or mostly absent (4 percent); e) the powers of the State Property Fund are fully or mostly sufficient for effective and efficient preparation of assets for privatization (3 percent); f) privatization procedures always or mostly make it possible to attract a sufficient number of bidders and ensure an appropriate level of fair competition among them (3 percent). |
20% |