Some reforms launched by Ukraine in response to GRECO recommendations on preventing corruption among MPs, judges and prosecutors, but serious concerns remain and effective implementation lags behind.

GRECO has made public on 26 March its Fourth Round Compliance Report on Ukraine (dealing with Corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors), as adopted by GRECO at its 84th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 2-6 December 2019), after authorisation by the authorities of Ukraine.

GRECO concludes that Ukraine has implemented satisfactorily or dealt with in a satisfactory manner five out of the thirty one recommendations contained in the Fourth Round Evaluation Report. Of the remaining recommendations, fifteen have been partly implemented and eleven have not been implemented.

The following recommendations have not been implemented.

• GRECO recommended (i) that a code of conduct for members of Parliament be developed and adopted with the participation of MPs themselves and be made easily accessible to the public; and (ii) that it be coupled with detailed written guidance on 11its practical implementation (g. prevention of conflicts of interest when exercising the parliamentary function, ad-hoc disclosure and self-recusal possibilities with respect to specific conflict of interest situations, gifts and other advantages, third party contacts, etc.).
• GRECO recommended the introduction of rules on how members of Parliament engage with lobbyists and other third parties who seek to influence the legislative process.
• GRECO recommended significantly strengthening the internal control mechanisms for integrity in Parliament so as to ensure independent, continuous and proactive monitoring and enforcement of the relevant rules. This clearly presupposes that a range of effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions be available.
• GRECO recommended developing efficient internal mechanisms to promote and raise awareness on integrity matters in Parliament, both on an individual basis (confidential counselling) and on an institutional level (training, institutional discussions on ethical issues, active involvement of leadership structures).
• GRECO recommended abolishing the criminal offence of “Delivery of a knowingly unfair sentence, judgment, ruling or order by a judge” (article 375 of the Criminal Code) and/or, at the least, otherwise ensuring that this and any other criminal offences criminalise only deliberate miscarriages of justice and are not misused by law enforcement agencies to exert undue influence and pressure on judges.
• GRECO recommended that periodic performance evaluation of judges is carried out by judges on the basis of pre-established, uniform and objective criteria in relation to their daily work.
• GRECO recommended defining disciplinary offences relating to judges’ conduct more precisely, including by replacing the reference to “norms of judicial ethics and standards of conduct which ensure public trust in court” with clear and specific offences.
• GRECO recommended amending the statutory composition of the Qualifications and Disciplinary Commission to ensure an absolute majority of prosecutorial practitioners elected by their peers.
• GRECO recommended introducing a system of random allocation of cases to individual prosecutors, based on strict and objective pre-established criteria including specialisation, and coupled with adequate safeguards –including stringent controls –against any possible manipulation of the system.
• GRECO recommended (i) defining disciplinary offences relating to prosecutors’ conduct and compliance with ethical norms more precisely; (ii) extending the range of disciplinary sanctions available to ensure better proportionality and effectiveness.
• GRECO recommended enhancing the efficiency of disciplinary proceedings by extending the limitation period, ensuring that proceedings can be launched also by the relevant self-governing bodies (which are not entrusted with decision-making in disciplinary proceedings) and heads of prosecution offices, and providing that appeals against disciplinary decisions can ultimately (after a possible internal procedure within the prosecution service) only be made to a court, both on substantive and procedural grounds.

GRECO notes that in the present absence of final achievements, further significant material progress is necessary to demonstrate that an acceptable level of compliance with the recommendations within the next 18 months can be achieved. However, bearing in mind that several substantial reforms are underway and on the understanding that the Ukrainian authorities will further pursue their efforts, GRECO concludes that the current low level of compliance with the recommendations is not “globally unsatisfactory” in the meaning of Rule 31, paragraph 8.3 of GRECO’s Rules of Procedure. GRECO invites the Head of delegation of Ukraine to submit additional information regarding the implementation of recommendations i-x, xii-xv, xvii-xix, xxii-xxx by 30 June 2021.