1 / 10

UKRAINE Governance assessment March 2006

UKRAINE Governance assessment March 2006. Legal administrative framework. Kiev, 5-Jul-06. Julio Nabais SIGMA. …assessment is about…. How the Constitution and the administrative legal framework are able: To ensure the rule of law in Ukraine

ford
Download Presentation

UKRAINE Governance assessment March 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UKRAINEGovernance assessmentMarch 2006 Legal administrative framework Kiev, 5-Jul-06 Julio Nabais SIGMA

  2. …assessment is about… • How the Constitution and the administrative legal framework are able: • To ensure the rule of law in Ukraine • To give enough and precise orientations to civil servants and public officials • Provide efficient accountability mechanisms • How public institutions are able to perform their functions • How practices are aligned with the Constitution and administrative law

  3. Basic constitutional conditions • Clear definition and separation of powers • Clear design of functions to be performed at the different levels of government • Political, administrative and judicial functions sharply defined • Clear specification of the overall political responsibility for Public Administration (PA) • Main principles guiding the structuring and functioning of PA • Sound principles regarding the rights and guarantees of citizens

  4. Main problems are related to: • Quality and validity of the Constitution • Implementation of the Constitution • Overall quality of the legislation • eg, General Law on Administrative Procedures • Weak control mechanisms: • Political • Judicial • Administrative

  5. Main findings (I) • Defective public law framework • Capacity to reform is limited • Transparency and openness of PA not assured • Legal uncertainty – arbitrariness – corruption • Poor quality of administrative legislation • Court system – mainly administrative courts – not enough developed

  6. Main findings (II) • Poor accountability and liability mechanisms • Old-fashioned design of the General Prosecutor’s functions • Weak capacity of the Ombudsman • Constitutional Court not operational • Weak capacity of civil servants in protecting legality and impartiality

  7. Main findings (III) State Administration & Local Self-Governments • Some improvements • Powers and accountability not yet clearly defined • Budgetary independence of the Local self-Governments needs to be improved

  8. Main recommendations - I • To assume strong political will and commitment with the reform process. • To concentrate on the legislation aimed at defining and clarifying the role of main political actors regarding the administrative environment. • To improve the overall quality of the legislation (RIA, consultation, …) • To adopt – implement – review legislation related to openness and transparency of the administration (LGAP, …)

  9. Main recommendations - II • To improve control, accountability and liability mechanisms. • To fully implement the administrative courts system. • To reinforce integrity and independence of the judiciary • To review the role of the Procuratura • To create proper conditions able to guarantee independence, neutrality and professionalism in civil service.

  10. Capacity to change Depends on: • Vision • Unquestionable and coherent political will; leadership • Political and social consensus • Technical capacity • Continuity and persistence • Appropriate support

More Related