ESR
3.1.1.1.
Legislative provisions defining the grounds and procedure for bringing entities subject to the Law On Prevention of Corruption to disciplinary account for violations of anticorruption legislation have been improved by introducing basic rules to the effect that:
a gross violation of the requirements of said Law shall be grounds for brining such individuals to disciplinary account;
separate grounds for initiating a disciplinary proceeding shall be a legally binding court decision that imposed on them an administrative penalty for committing a corruption-related offense, or discontinued proceedings in a case involving such a violation due to an expired statute of limitations for imposing the administrative penalty, or relief of administrative liability granted due to the negligible nature of the offense;
a legally binding court verdict that imposed on them a criminal penalty for committing corruption or a corruption-related offense, as well as a court ruling that relieves this individual of criminal liability shall serve as unconditional grounds for dismissing this person
Problem solving:
3.1.1. Violations of the requirements of anticorruption legislation are not always treated as a disciplinary offense in practice; a large share of individuals subject to the Law of Ukraine On Prevention of Corruption manage to avoid disciplinary penalties
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 |
the law on amendments to the Law of Ukraine On Prevention of Corruption has taken effect; this law: a) defines a single unified list of violations of the requirements of the Law of Ukraine On Prevention of Corruption, which constitute manifestations of gross violation of the ethical code of conduct and grounds for disciplinary liability of officials performing the functions of state or local self-government (irrespective of their category) (20 percent); b) stipulates that separate grounds for bringing such persons to disciplinary account shall be a legally binding court decision that imposed on them an administrative penalty for committing a corruption-related offense, or discontinued proceedings in a case involving such a violation due to an expired statute of limitations for imposing the administrative penalty, or relief of administrative liability granted due to the negligible nature of the offense (20 percent); c) stipulates the following unconditional grounds for dismissal (outside of the disciplinary liability procedure) of all categories of officials performing the functions of state or local self-government: a legally binding court verdict that imposed on them a criminal penalty for committing corruption or a corruption-related offense, as well as a court ruling that relieves such individuals of criminal liability (10 percent); a legally binding court decision to hold them administratively or criminally liable for committing corruption or a corruption-related offense, which imposed a penalty or punishment on the official in the form of a prohibition from filling positions or engaging in activities involving the performance of the functions of state or local self-government (10 percent); a legally binding court decision that has found the assets of such individuals or assets acquired by third parties on their behalf (as well as in other cases stipulated in Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine) to constitute unjust enrichment, and has ordered their confiscation in favor of the state (10 percent). |
70% |
| 2 |
the results of the expert survey have demonstrated that: a) more than 75 percent of experts on the formulation and implementation of the legal policy evaluate the quality of legal regulation indicated in subclause 1 of clause 3.1.1.1 as high or very high (30 percent); b) more than 50 percent of experts on the formulation and implementation of the legal policy evaluate the quality of legal regulation indicated in subclause 1 of clause 3.1.1.1 as high or very high (20 percent); c) more than 25 percent of experts on the formulation and implementation of the legal policy evaluate the quality of legal regulation indicated in subclause 1 of clause 3.1.1.1 as high or very high (10 percent). |
30% |