Topic: Diachronic characteristics of European and domestic anti-corruption culture on the background of Western, Eastern and other traditions of law.
The Project Coordinator, Associate Professor O. Makarenkov, held regular scheduled lecture within the specified course. Through the Internet on the Zoom VCI platform, students were able to gain knowledge about the domestic anti-corruption model of public law transformation in historical and legal retrospect (2014-2020). The lecturer also spoke about the current determinants of future trends in this model, including increasing the efficiency of the judiciary and law enforcement agencies in the investigation of corruption and related crimes, administration of justice in these cases.
The importance of applying the following rules of law to courts, prosecutors and law enforcement agencies was stressed. These rules apply to competitive selection for the position and compliance with qualification requirements (presence of personal and professional qualities); election for a term and limitation of the number of such election / appointment to administrative positions; decent level of remuneration for work; self-government bodies and qualification assessment / disciplinary responsibility; internal control bodies / disciplinary commissions; mechanisms of the open civil society institutions influence, etc.
It is determined that in the domestic legal space the relations on promotion of individuals and/or business structures interests through decisions / actions of public authorities (lobbyism) are not regulated. This corruption-causing factor is complemented by the uncertainty of the mechanisms for reliable identification of illicit enrichment. Together with the absence of court verdicts (acquittals or indictments) on high-profile corruption cases of top corruption, they significantly weaken the progress of public-law integrity in the future. Thus, the inability of anti-corruption legislation to be effectively applied by the existing anti-corruption infrastructure of Ukraine is revealed and the need for additional transformations of the relevant legal norms is determined, including with the support of the EU.
During the lesson, the possibilities of borrowing relevant experience of successful fight against corruption of prosecutors and law enforcement agencies of the Kingdom of Denmark (State Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime, 1973; The Agency provides preventative measures to prevent bribery in international relations with foreign counterparties), Kingdom of the Netherlands (The National Police Internal Investigations Department; The National Public Prosecutor on Corruption) and the Kingdom of Belgium (The Belgian Central Office for the Repression of Corruption, 1998) were outlined.
