• To unblock and prepare objects for privatization.

This step was fulfilled. In spring, the Verkhovna Rada unblocked large-scale privatization by adopting the Law Of Ukraine No. 1365-IX. In 2021, the State Property Fund of Ukraine referred two large-scale privatization objects for sale: state-owned blocks of shares in AT The First Kyiv Machine-Building Plant (Plant "Bilshovyk") and AT United Mining and Chemical Company.

Despite the start of large-scale privatization, there are some problems. In January 2022, the SBI imposed an arrest on 100% of the authorized capital of the plant, so the future of the enterprise remains in question. The auction for the sale of the UMCC was canceled three times due to insufficient number of bids. Most companies refused to participate due to investment risks in Ukraine.

• To disclose information about state-owned objects. To develop a new Register of State-Owned Objects as an affordable and convenient tool for visualizing and recovering objects. To change the legislative framework in the field of state-owned objects management.

According to the SPFU, as of July 1, 2021, more than 1 million objects of public property are registered in Ukraine. However, only access to information on assets, subject to privatization or lease, is facilitated. Therefore, public property accounting and access to it need to be improved. Changes to legislation and a new register were in development as of the end of 2021.

• To improve the field of procurement in accordance with international commitments. To minimize the risks of adopting draft laws that contradict the Law of Ukraine "On Public Procurement" and/or expand the list of exceptions from the scope of the indicated law. To ensure effective control and monitoring of procurement by the State Audit Service.

There were significantly more attempts to exclude procurement from the scope of competitive tenders in 2021. The authorities want to distribute billions of hryvnias of taxpayers manually, as it already happened before the launch of the Prozorro system.

In 2021, the Parliament allowed to purchase everything necessary for the Constitution Day and Independence Day of Ukraine, including infrastructure projects for the anniversary, under to the negotiation procedure. Moreover, MPs excluded the construction of Kyiv Ring Road from the scope of the Law of Ukraine "On Public Procurement." Draft law 6273 was voted in the first reading, which would allow the construction of the Dniester PSPS and repairs of compressor stations of gas pipelines to be conducted without competition, under the negotiation procedure, and so on. The procurement monitoring by the State Audit Service, despite quantitative indicators, also raises many questions.

• To conduct transparent and politically impartial competitive selections of heads of anti-corruption institutions.
  

Despite the repeated promises of the authorities and even international obligations of Ukraine, the competition for the selection of the SAPO head was discredited as much as possible, and as of January 2022, it has not been completed.

As part of the competition to select the head of the ARMA, candidates passed tests for knowledge of general and special legislation. At the same time, TI Ukraine experts found numerous problems — in particular, this refers to the lack of a procedure for holding a competition and the rules of work of the selection commission when accepting documents, blurring the criteria of integrity, and so on. Only 12 candidates applied for the selection itself. And although all of them are allowed to participate in the competition, it is difficult to expect optimal results and the election of a truly worthy head of the ARMA.

• To ensure an effective system of checks and balances for independence of the anti-corruption infrastructure from administrative and political pressure.
  

On the one hand, after the decisions of the Constitutional Court, changes were made that balanced the branches of government — for example, in part of the NABU's activities. Therefore, there is little progress in this direction. However, at the same time, anti-corruption institutions were subjected to serious pressure and attempts to weaken their independence. We emphasize the need to change the legislation and ensure the real independence of the ecosystem, in particular of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office from the Prosecutor General's Office. It is also important to change the procedures for competitive selection of the SAPO and ARMA heads, which will facilitate the appointment of professional and honest managers.

• To provide anti-corruption bodies with the necessary tools in legislation for the full implementation of their functions.
  

Positive changes: last year, MPs did vote for the first changes to legislation on the ARMA, this was another step towards improving the management of seized assets. And with the newly adopted Law, the NABU is getting closer to being able to independently conduct wiretapping of potential corrupt officials. However, there are also growth zones. This is, for example, draft Law that should provide the HACC with tools to counteract the violation of the judicial process; such changes should significantly increase the efficiency of the court. MPs never got around to the consideration of this document in the session hall. Moreover, the infamous decision of the CCU deprived the NACP of the opportunity to fully perform a significant part of its functions.

• To introduce balanced criminal liability for "lying in declarations" and deliberate failure to submit a declaration, which would provide for a sanction in the form of imprisonment.

Although MPs did improve the liability for false declaration, they did it too late: the adopted document did not apply to annual declarations for 2020.

2021 was the first year when declarations were submitted in the absence of effective deterrent sanctions for lying in declarations or failure to submit them. The absence of the threat of imprisonment prompted a less responsible attitude of officials to the declaration. At the same time, even after the restoration of more severe consequences, the maximum penalty was 1 year in prison, and not 2, as, for example, TI Ukraine recommended.

• To select a virtuous composition of the High Council of Justice, involving the international community and public experts.
  
  

In the summer of 2021, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed two laws that launched judicial reform: No. 5068 on amendments to the procedure for electing (appointing) members of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) and the activities of disciplinary inspectors of the HCJ, as well as No. 3711-d that amends the law "On the Judiciary and Status of Judges" and certain laws on the resumption of work of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ)."

Now, on the basis of the adopted laws, attempts are being made to resurrect and reset the HCJ, but the current High Council of Justice blocks these attempts in every possible way. Although the beginning of the reform of the judicial selection system is a positive signal, delaying the process creates risks of invalidating all efforts to transform the judicial system.

• To abolish Kyiv Administrative Court, which still issues shameful rulings.
  
  

The recommendation was not fulfilled, despite all the statements of the authorities and the relevant draft law already submitted to the Parliament. The judges of the Kyiv Administrative Court continue to administer justice and issue questionable rulings, which directly affect the course of reforms and the fight against corruption in Ukraine.

• To initiate a new comprehensive draft law, taking into account all recommendations from the Venice Commission on the reform of the Constitutional Court, and consider it in the near future.
  
  

The Verkhovna Rada adopted draft law No. 4533 "On the Constitutional Procedure" in the first reading. Despite certain positive changes provided for in this draft law, it has a significant drawback – the lack of provisions on a new system of competitive selection of judges with the participation of international partners. However, the President makes a decision on the appointment of new judges of the Constitutional Court in violation of even the current legislation.