Corruption Risks in the Fields of Administrative Services and Control-Supervision Activities of Public Administration in Ukraine
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Council of Europe European Union Conseil de l’Europe Union europeenne Support to Good Governance: Project against Corruption in Ukraine C P L R (UPAC) Corruption and Fraud Unit Department of Information Society and Action Against Crime Directorate of Co-operation Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs April 2009 CORRUPTION RISKS IN THE FIELDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND CONTROL-SUPERVISION ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN UKRAINE Analytical report prepared by Centre for Political and Legal Reforms of Ukraine Sociological report prepared by Democratic Initiatives Foundation The views expressed in this document are authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect official positions of the Council of Europe Kyiv - 2009 Analytical report prepared by Centre for Political and Legal Reforms of Ukraine by: Ihor Koliushko, Viktor Tymoshchuk, Oleksandr Banchuk, Yuriy Ishchenko, Petro Zalizniak, Oleksiy Kurinnyi, Alla Pukhtetska, Valentyna Stoyan, Artem Shaipov Sociological report prepared by Democratic Initiatives Foundation by: Iryna Bekeshkina © Council of Europe, 2009 © Centre for Political and Legal Reforms of Ukraine, 2009 © Democratic Initiatives Foundation, 2009 CONTENTS ANALYTICAL REPORT OF THE CENTRE FOR POLITICAL AND LEGAL REFORMS OF UKRAINE...........................................................................5 1. SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................6 2. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 8 3. ANALYTICAL PART.................................................................................................... 12 SECTION.3.1 COMMON.CORRUPTION.RISKS.. .................IN.PUBLIC.ADMINISTRATION................................................................. 12 3.1.1. Institutional.and.Functional.Conflicts.of.Interest.. in.the.System.of.Public.Administration........................................................... 12 3.1.2.. Weakness.of.the.Institute.of.Public.Service.in.Ukraine.................................. 17 3.1.3. Poor.Quality.of.Legislation,.in.Particular,.Underdeveloped.. Administrative.Procedure.Legislation............................................................. 21 3.1.4. Lack.of.Proper.Tools.of.Legal.Protection.and.Ineffectiveness.. of.the.Institute.of.Administrative.Appeal.in.Particular..................................... 28 3.1.5. Weakness.of.Internal.Administrative.Controls,.. Including.Ineffective.Internal.Investigations.Procedure.................................. 31 3.1.6. Ineffective.External.Control.of.Public.Administration.Activity......................... 35 SECTION.3.2..CORRUPTION.RISKS.IN.THE.SPHERE.. .................OF.RENDERING.ADMINISTRATIVE.SERVICES..................................... 37 3.2.1.. Personal.Communication.(Contact).of.Private.Person,.. a.Consumer.of.Administrative.Service.with.the.Public.. Officials.Rendering.Administrative.Services.................................................. 37 3.2.2. Limited.Options.for.Private.Persons.to.Choose.Between.. the.Ways.of.Requesting.an.Administrative.Service........................................ 43 3.2.3. Overall.Complexity.of.the.Procedure.of.Rendering.. the.Most.of.Administrative.Services............................................................... 44 3.2.4. Lack.of.Information.on.the.Procedure.. of.Providing.Administrative.Servcies.............................................................. 49 3.2.5. Restricted.Access.to.a.Public.Administration.Agency.. that.Provides.Administrative.Services............................................................ 52 3.2.6. Unreasonably.Long.Periods.of.Time.Required.. to.Provide.Certain.Administrative.Services.................................................... 57 3.2.7. Disorder.in.the.Payments.For.Administrative.Services,.. Imposition.of.Additional.“Paid.Services”......................................................... 60 3.2.8. Territorial.Monopolism.in.Providing.Administrative.Services.......................... 63 3 CONTENTS SECTION.3.3..CORRUPTION.RISKS.IN.CONTROL.AND.SUPERVISORY. ..................ACTIVITIES.OF.THE.PUBLIC.ADMINISTRATION.................................. 67 3.3.1. Unreasonably.Broad.Interference.Powers.Given. to.Many.Administrative.Agencies.as.Regards. Termination/Prohibition.of.Activities............................................................... 67 3.3.2. Unjustified.Broad.Powers.of.Administrative.Bodies. Concerning.Unimpaired.Access.to.Information,. Items.and.Documents,.Premises,.and.Land.Sites......................................... 73 3.3.3. Unjustified.Authority.of.Some.Administrative.Bodies. to.Conduct.Field.Inspections.......................................................................... 80 3.3.4. Powers.Vested.in.Certain.Administrative. Agencies.to.Charge.Penalties.on.the.Scene.................................................. 85 3.3.5. The.Focus.of.Control.and.Supervision.on.Punishment. Rather.than.on.Elimination.or.Prevention.of.Violations.................................. 87 3.3.6. Identity.of.Formal.Components.of.Violations.Envisaged. by.the.Administrative.Code.and.by.Many.Sectoral.Acts,. which.are.Punished.With.Fines.in.Different.Amounts.................................... 92 3.3.7. Big.Difference.in.Determination.of.the.Biggest.and.Smallest.Fines............... 98 3.3.8. Coincidence.of.Formal.Components.of.Administrative. Offences.and.Crimes................................................................................... 107 4. CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................... 116 5. RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................. 121 REPORT OF DEMOCRATIC INITIATIVES FOUNDATION ON RESULTS OF THE SOCIOLOGOCAL SURVEY................................................ 130 Introduction. THE SURVEY METHODOLOGY........................................................ 132 Section 1. PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION BY GENERAL POPULATION OF UKRAINE AND BY UKRAINIAN ENTREPRENEURS AS A SPECIAL SOCIAL GROUP....................... 135 Section 2. CORRUPTION RISKS IN THE AREA OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR GENERAL POPULATION AND ENTREPRENEURS, AND ATTITUDES TO PROPOSED INSTRUMENTS FOR RISK REDUCTION ............................................. 155 Section 3. CORRUPTION RISKS RELATED TO CONTROL AND SUPERVISION, AND ATTITUDES TO PROPOSALS OF RISK REDUCTION.............................................................................. 180 4 ANALYTICAL REPORT OF THE CENTRE FOR POLITICAL AND LEGAL REFORMS OF UKRAINE 1. SUMMARY he subject report presents the results of the study of risks of corruption Tin two spheres of activities of public administration bodies, such as delivery of administrative services and control and supervision. The above was the purpose of desk study of potential risks of corruption, development of recommendations concerning the elimination (minimization) thereof, and also, assessment of the relevance of subject risks and proposed recommendations using survey (polling) of the public, focus groups with entrepreneurs and extended interviews with public officials of central and local government bodies. The analytical part of this study was carried out by the Centre for Political and Legal Reforms non-governmental organization during January 2008 – April 2009. The sociological part was carried out by the Democratic Initiatives’ Foundation on March 2009. This Project was implemented within the UPAC Project implemented by the Council of Europe and funded mainly by the EC (“Support to good governance: Project against corruption in Ukraine”). Considering the results of sociological studies, the following can be referred to corruption risks in the area of delivery of administrative services: 1) Overall complexity of the procedure of delivery of administratyive services; 2) Unjustified long time for delivery of some administrative services; 3) Lack of information concerning the procedure of rendering administrative services; 4) Limited access to administrative bodies rendering services (limited open hours, visitors standing in lines, etc). The following were found to be the major corruption risks in the area of control and supervision: 6 ANALYTICAL REPORT OF THE CENTRE FOR POLITICAL AND LEGAL REFORMS OF UKRAINE 1) Unjustified broad interference powers of many administrative bodies particularly where suspension/halting of business operations is concerned; 2) Some administrative bodies exercise unjustified powers related to conducting field inspections; 3) Control and supervision bodies focus more on punishment rather than corrective action or prevention. In order to eliminate (minimize) corruption risks in the areas of public administration under review appropriate recommendations (attached hereto) for various political entities (Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Cabinet of Ministers, Ministry of Justice) and also, for the leadership of public administration bodies (in part of organizational integrity) were developed. The latter is particularly critical for Ukraine considering that numerous measures could be implemented without modifying the legislation. Also, it should be noted that the absolute majority of expert recommendations concerning minimization of corruption risks was supported by public at large, entrepreneurs as specific target group and representatives of government bodies. One of the general conclusions of this analytical study is recognition