In 2010,Ukraineimplemented only 8 out of 70 analyzed reform priorities, outlined in the EU-UkraineAssociation Agenda (AA), the key document regulating EU-Ukraine relations. Trends during thereporting period showed that progress in the reforms agenda is too slow, and a clear regress exists ina number of fields.
These are the major conclusions of the
interim monitoring report, prepared by a civil society’smonitoring of the implementation of the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda and presented on March 17
,2011 in Kyiv. The project is supported by the
International Renaissance Foundation (OSI Network)
.Experts conclude that in 2010
only 8 priorities
of the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda have been fullyimplemented by the Ukrainian government.
are still at the implementation stage;
have not been implemented at all.For example, in 2010Ukraine’s President, the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) ortheConstitutional Court
have done no steps to execute an inclusive constitutional reform
. On thecontrary, measures taken by these authorities pushedUkrainefurtheraway from an efficientconstitutional system of checks and balances.
, according to experts,
must be assessed negatively
, since it does not settleexisting problems and in some cases creates new ones. Adopted measures are in fact aimed atcentralization of thepower vertical and enhancement of the President’s competences.
Adoption ofUkraine’s law “On access to public information” can be seen as a significant positive step
.Adoption of this procedural law was one of the EU requirements, set to encourage transparency of theactivities of public authorities. In order to ensure efficient application of this law there is a need todevelop additional regulatory acts.Public administration’s measures to ensure efficiency of the
at parliamentary and localelections do not fully correspond to principles of the OSCE and Council of Europe, and sometimes evencreate conditions for violating election rights.Ukraine’s law “On Judicial Order and the Status of the Judges”
increased threats to the independenceof the judges
. First, it established too short deadlines for examination of cases, and the judges risk to bedismissed if they fail to meet them. The new law does notestablish any competition-based principles of promotion of the judges, and does not define any criteria of appointing the judges of the higher levels.The authorities have not shown any proper enthusiasm in the field of the
criminal procedure reform
.The justice system (especially in criminal and administrative cases) has become controlled andadministrated by public authorities and used by it as an instrument to ban peaceful assemblies, toorganize criminal persecutions of the opposition or other persons posing political menace to the newadministration.Some progress has been made in2010 inthe field of
. Abolishment of 22types of licensed economic activities and implementation of a system of electronic state registration of economic operators has been the most important results in the field.In the field of the
fight against corruption
the time of entry into force ofUkraine’s anti-corruption lawswas delayed twice. Finally, in late December these laws lost their effect without even entering intoforce. But the draft law proposed by the President has only technical differences compared to theprevious laws.