Problem

Existing definitions such terms as "potential conflict of interest", "real conflict of interest", and "private interest" lack sufficient clarity and unambiguity.
The definitions of the terms "potential conflict of interest" and "real conflict of interest" include such elements as "private interest" and "official / representative powers". Moreover, in order to establish a real conflict of interest, it is necessary to establish a contradiction between the private interest and the official / representative powers.
The use of the term "contradiction" in the definition of the real conflict of interest does not contribute to clarity, suggesting that not any private interest can affect the objectivity of the exercise of powers, but only the one that "contradicts" the powers. In reality, the main danger of conflicts of interest as a social and legal phenomenon is the fact that a private interest interferes with the impartial exercise of powers, and not the fact that there can be private interests that contradict official powers.
Specifically the failure to prove the existence of a contradiction between a private interest and official powers plays a decisive in courts when it comes to deciding whether the requirements of the Law of Ukraine On Prevention of Corruption dealing with the prevention and resolution of conflicts of interest have been violated, and therefore creates additional obstacles to bringing individuals to administrative liability and enforcing the principle of inevitability of liability for corruption-related offenses.
The definition of "private interest" also requires some clarification, as the definition provided in the Law of Ukraine On Prevention of Corruption does not provide a clear understanding of what it may consist of. This leads to situations where everyone has to rely solely on their subjective perception of private interest in deciding whether or not a private interest exists, which is the main reason for misunderstanding the nature of the conflict of interest, leading to offenses or complicating the work of public servants who see a conflict of interest in situations where it is actually absent, or vice versa.
The rules for resolving conflicts of interest set out in Section V of the Law of Ukraine On Prevention of Corruption are insufficient to ensure the resolution of conflicts of interest: there is no algorithm of actions for the direct superior in cases when they lack the authority to apply a particular method of external resolution of a subordinate’s conflict of interest (e.g., transfer or dismissal); there is an inconsistency in the provisions of the Law of Ukraine On Prevention of Corruption regarding the time frame for reporting a conflict of interest and the time frame for its independent resolution; there is no administrative liability of managers for failure to act on resolving conflicts of interest of subordinates; there are no requirements for the form and procedure for filing a report on a conflict of interest, which leads to alternative (ambiguous) actions of a person upon discovery of a conflict of interest, which may cause this person to face liability.
Despite the changes to the rules for transferring enterprises and corporate rights to third parties for management, certain flaws still remain, namely: the absence of an obligation to transfer enterprises and corporate rights acquired after appointment (election) to a position to third parties for management; the possibility of officials handing over their businesses or corporate rights for management to their next of kin; disciplinary liability for violation of the obligation to transfer enterprises and corporate rights for management is ineffective (it cannot be applied to some entities, such as Ukrainian Parliament members); it is not prohibited to make decisions or taking actions with respect to legal entities belonging to the official or in which this official owns corporate rights.
While acknowledging the increased effectiveness of the National Agency’s monitoring and control over the implementation of legislative acts on ethical conduct, prevention and resolution of conflicts of interest in the activities of public servants, which until 2020 had been carried out by the National Agency with limited tools and mainly on the basis of reports on corruption and corruption-related offenses, it is worth highlighting certain organizational and regulatory problems that still persist and hinder the effectiveness of its activities (inaccurate and or incorrect wording of the respective powers and rights of the National Agency (simultaneous use of the words "monitoring" and "control" in the definitions of powers, which are different in terms of their substance), discrepancies between the provisions of the Law of Ukraine On Prevention of Corruption and provisions of other laws, which makes it impossible to obtain certain types of classified information, the lack of a system for ranking and analyzing information contained in the Unified State Register of Declarations of Officials Authorized to Carry out Functions of State or Local Self-Government, which would make it possible to identify risks of violation of legislative requirements pertaining to prevention and resolution of conflicts of interest by the declarants.