By KYIV. Dec 26 (Interfax-Ukraine) – The main corruption risk of draft law No. 5655 on the reform of the urban planning sector is its development in violation of the principle of transparency and consideration of public opinion.
This position was stated by the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) in a letter to the National Union of Architects of Ukraine, Hanna Kyriy, the deputy chairman of the Architectural Chamber of the National Union of Architects of Ukraine, told Interfax-Ukraine.
"The national agency has always emphasized – both in its public position at a meeting of the committee on November 28, 2022, and in its informal communication with the diplomats of the G7 countries – that the main corruption risk of the draft law is its development in an insufficiently open and inclusive way, in violation of the principle transparency and consideration of public opinion, established by the law of Ukraine on the fundamentals of state regulatory policy in the sphere of economic activity," the NACP letter says.
At the same time, the profile committee of the Verkhovna Rada did not fully take into account the comments of the national agency on the results of finalizing the bill at a meeting on December 9, the department notes.
According to the NACP, the revised draft law still contains a provision that establishes the principle of tacit consent to restore the right to perform preparatory and construction work by the customer/general contractor in the event that an authorized person of the city control body fails to fulfill his duties to enter into the register of construction activities statements on filing a claim to terminate such rights within 30 days from the date of issuance of the relevant order.
In turn, the national agency recommended that this provision be excluded from the revised version of the law.
The NAPC emphasizes that its representatives did not participate in the meeting of the profile committee on December 9 and the parliament meeting on December 13, when the law was adopted, and therefore cannot fully assess the degree to which their recommendations and comments are taken into account in the final version of the law.
The national agency also never campaigned either for or against the adoption of the bill, but conducted an anti-corruption examination and additional analysis of the bill, providing comments within its competence, the letter says.
