Expected strategic result 3.2.1.4. Grounds for administrative liability for violations of rules, prohibitions, and restrictions applicable to the funding of political parties and financial reporting by political parties have been improved

An analysis of the legislation and consolidation of the practices of holding individuals accountable for administrative offenses punishable under Articles 21215 and 21221 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, has been conducted with a focus on:
a) the systemic nature, completeness, and legal accuracy of the legislative definition of the grounds for such liability (10 percent);
b) alignment of the penalties imposed with the principles of fairness, proportionality, and individualization, as well as the capability to accomplish the objective of the administrative penalty (10 percent).

The law has come into force, which provides for systemic improvement of the grounds for holding offenders liable for offenses punishable under Articles 21215 and 21221 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, as well as stipulating the kinds and amounts of penalties to be imposed on such offenders, in particular by:
a) aligning the substance of these articles with the legislation on political parties and elections (15 percent);
b) eliminating conflicts and contradictions between these articles and Article 1591 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (15 percent);
c) stipulating that the subject of the administrative offense punishable under Article 21221 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses is not a political party, but an individual who is obligated to ensure the submission of the relevant report (10 percent);
d) instituting harsher and more balanced sanctions for the commission of said offenses (10 perpetrator).

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 2 of clause 3.2.1.4 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 2 of clause 3.2.1.4 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 2 of clause 3.2.1.4 as high or very high (10 percent).