Activity report for 2016

www.pravo.org.ua facebook.com/pravo.org.ua
1. CPLR in Board Members’ Words ..........................................................
2. Achievements of CPLR for 20 years .....................................................
3. 2016 in: ..............................................................................................
1) constitutionalism
2) governance and public administration
3) justice
4) criminal justice
5) anti-corruption
6) information and e-governance
4. Publications of CPLR ...........................................................................
5. CPLR as institutor and active participant in coalitions of civil ..............
society organizations
6. Statistics of analytical products and media activity of CPLR .................
7. Financial account ................................................................................
8. Budget for 2016, projects, donors ........................................................
9. Revenue budget from donors ..............................................................
1-2
Content
3-4
5-20
21
22-23
24
25-26
27-28
29-30

slideshare.net/CentrePravo 1
The Centre of Policy and Legal Reform as an independent think
tank has from the outset operated within the “government-
science-public” triangle.We have always tried to be more
rationalized,consistent,and initiative-taking than the
government,more proactive,practice-oriented,and European
than the academic scholarship,and more constructive,
experience-based,and responsible than the median public.
Obviously,with varying degrees of success.Yet,today’s CPLR
is the most experienced team of experts on issues relating to
institutional development of the state.We have already resolved
quite a few societal problems.We now must find the answer
to the most difficult question: how to transform the acquired
knowledge and skills into building a holistic and efficient system,
which is a democratic Ukrainian state grounded in the rule of law.
Centre of Policy and Legal Reform, in Board Members’ Words
Ihor Koliushko:
CPLR to me is the ability to work in a team of passionate
and responsible citizens; the ability to get involved in the
state-building; interesting and creative work; meeting
hundreds of wonderful practitioners and theoretical
experts; needing to learn constantly.Many of the Centre’s
ideas and recommendations have been brought to life over
these 20 years,which is extremely inspiring!
Victor Tymoshchuk:
Centre of Policy and Legal Reform.A team of like-minded
people.Sharing common values.Sharing common goals.
And,most importantly,sharing common accomplishments.
They are being used by the society.And,we are also united
by our dreams and plans.We are working on bringing
them to life.To be continued.
Roman Kuybida:

www.pravo.org.ua facebook.com/pravo.org.ua 2
CPLR is like a solar system made up of a central star – the
Human Rights Sun,and a set of “entities” connected by gravity
– experts,other colleagues,and partners… There are large
planets,their satellites,and comets.All of them collectively
revolve around the Sun in the same direction.The Sun’s
gravity is the determining force for the movement of all the
bodies in the system.And this system,along with other stars
whose movements we carefully follow,is part of a fairytale-
named galaxy of Milky Way.This is our Ukraine.Unlike the real
Solar System,our “planets” are inhabited by active,interesting
life.Each of the “planets” (CPLR members) is a unique and
important one,all of them impact each other,and yet all of
them are nothing without the idea of the Sun.
Mykola Khavronyuk:
CPLR to me is a community of people who chose service
to the Ukrainian public interest as their main mission.
Oleksandr Banchuk:
The Centre of Policy and Legal Reform to me is a closely-
knit team of optimistic professionals,with whom I dream
of a strong rule of law-grounded Ukrainian state.These
dreams and like-minded people charge me with mad
energy and strength for everyday work aimed at raising
the constitutional culture in our country.
Yuliya Kyrychenko:

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (CPLR) is a Ukrainian think-tank
established in 1996 after adoption of the Constitution of Ukraine. CPLR is a
non-governmental, non-profit and non-party organization which operates on
the national scale - both in the capital and in regions of Ukraine.
The mission of CPLR is to promote institutional reforms in Ukraine aimed
at bolstering democracy, rule of law, good governance and other European
values.
Participation in the creation of the final draft of the Concept of administrative reform in Ukraine. The
concept was approved by the President of Ukraine in 1998.
Development of the draft Law“On local public administrations”.The law was adopted by the Verkhovna
Rada in 1999.
Participation in the development of the Law “On the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”. CPLR made
efforts to promote the law as early as 1996. Eight times the law was adopted by the Verkhovna Rada
but the President vetoed it every time. Finally the law was passed by both the Verkhovna Rada and
the President in 2008. Unfortunately, in 2010 the law was essentially spoiled by amendments made
for merely political reasons.
Development in 2002 of the draft Law “On central executive bodies” followed by a long advocacy
campaign for its adoption. It was adopted in 2011 but the law contained changes that decreased its
possible positive effect.
Participation in advocacy campaign for Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada transparency (1998–2002).
CPLR took a direct role in filling the web-site www.zakon.gov.ua with bills adopted in the Verkhovna
Rada at a time when the information about bills was not available on the Verkhovna Rada website.
Development of the Concept of the establishment of administrative courts system in Ukraine and
participation in development of Code of Administrative Justice that was adopted by the Verkhovna
Rada in 2005. The Code introduced the system of administrative courts and administrative procedure.
Development of a draft Law “On access to judicial decisions” which was adopted in 2005. The Law
envisaged establishment of Unified State Register of courts’ decisions. The Law introduced the unique
in Europe free national portal which made most decision of domestic courts open to the public.
Development of the Concept of judicial reform and the draft Law “On judicial system and status of
judges” (A version of the draft was adopted in 2010 but unfortunately it was so distorted that it had a
negative impact at judicial system).
Preparationof the draft Law“Onaccessto publicinformation” in 2008 followed bya wide and successful
advocacy campaign of NGOs and media resulting in its adoption in 2011. The Law introduced the
rights and guarantees for citizens to request public information from public authorities.
Development of the Theory of administrative services and the preparation of the Concept of
administrative services system reform (approved by the Government in 2006). Assistance in creation
of pilot Centers for Providing Administrative Services in several cities in Ukraine. Active participation
in the preparation of the draft Law “On administrative services” which was adopted in 2012. The
Law initiated the client-oriented approach in provision of administrative services (granting licenses,
permits, certificates) by public authorities to individuals and companies.
Key achievements of CPLR for the last 20 years
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Participation in drafting the Administrative Procedure Code which has been waiting for its approval
since 2008. In 2012 the draft of the code was sent again to the Verkhovna Rada by decision of the
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
Development of the draft Code of Administrative Offenses and policy papers necessary for reforming
the institute of administrative responsibility.
Participation in the development of Concept of administrative-territorial reform and necessary draft laws.
Active participation in drafting the new Code of Criminal Procedure and the draft Law “On legal
aid” adopted in 2012. The Code and the Law are replacing the Soviet criminal procedure by the
contemporary human-right-oriented approach to criminal investigation.
Preparation of Green and White Papers on constitutional reform in Ukraine.
Active participation in improvement of legislation on freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom
of associations, including draft Laws “On public associations” (adopted in 2012) and “On peaceful
assemblies” (pending in Verkhovna Rada).
Participation in development and advocating for consideration and adoption byVerkhovna Rada of the
Law “On prosecution office” of October 14, 2014. This Law introduces European standards of criminal
prosecution and the status of attorney-general as contrast to former Soviet prosecution system.
Struggling against unconstitutional Law “On national referendum of Ukraine” adopted in 2012.
Development of a new draft Law “On nationwide referendum of Ukraine”, which has been pending in
Verkhovna Rada.
Continuous efforts aimed at intensification of combatting corruption in Ukraine with special emphasis
on participation in development of anti-corruption legislation and conducting anti-corruption
expertise of draft Laws and Laws.
Assistance in National Police formation; participation in development of the Law “On National
Police” from 2015, participation in shortlisting of police officers. Development of the Law “On State
Investigation Bureau” and advocacy campaign for its adoption (November 12, 2015). Participating in
its implementation.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

slideshare.net/CentrePravo
Year 2016 in constitutionalism
Area Experts: Ihor Koliushko, Yuliya Kyrychenko, Bohdan Bondarenko
In June 2016, we managed to introduce amendments to Constitution on justice, in compliance with the
constitutional procedure,which give a chance for successful implementation of judicial reform.Amendments
are aimed at strengthening the independence of the judiciary and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. As
a result of implementation of these constitutional amendments, civil society hopes to reduce the level of
corruption in the court system. On a positive note, a new constitutional right - the right to a constitutional
complaint – is worth mentioning.
Unfortunately,thisyearwewereunabletoamendtheconstitutionalprovisionsrelatingtodecentralization
of power (i.e., to conduct the administrative-territorial reform and to strengthen local self-governance). In
addition,this year buried the civil society’s hopes to carry out a comprehensive constitutional reform aiming
at improvement of state governance (notably, improving the mixed form of government and achieving the
balance among branches of power). The Constitutional Court of Ukraine remains weak and politically
dependent. The authorities allow themselves to violate constitutional provisions.
Experts joined the development of the constitutional amendments and of the implementing laws on
the judiciary, worked on establishment of democratic procedures for conducting national referenda in
Ukraine,conducted monitoring of constitutional reform and of implementation of the new law on financing
of political parties. Constitutional justice was a separate area of activity; specifically, strengthening the
independence of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
In addition to the traditional analytical work, the Centre turned to new forms of activity aimed at
strengthening the constitutional culture, as well as increasing civic participation in the constitutional
process.
We aim to develop the understanding of the Constitution as a fundamental value for every citizen and
to form the demand for constitutional reform based on public interests.
5

national-level information campaign on the process of constitutional reform;
awareness campaigns in the regions on constitutional amendments and the process of constitutional reform;
continuing to work on consolidation of independent and authoritative experts’ position on the
improvement of forms of government in Ukraine.
Press conferences, including in each regional center;
Expert discussions on TV;
TV programs on regional state channels;
Analytical articles with infographics; publications in regional media;
Promoting the campaign on social media networks;
Student essays competition on constitutional reform
Analytical notes on constitutional reform in Ukraine for the international community;
A comprehensive draft law on amending the Constitution with respect to improving the mixed,
parliamentary-presidential, form of government;
Trainings for journalists on constitutional themes;
Motivational videos
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In connection with this, we carried out:
We engaged in:
We were active both regionally and centrally.The regional information campaign was successful,
we observe the public demand for an independent expert opinion on issues of state governance.
Through the experts efforts, 61 TV programs have been recorded and broadcasted with reruns on
regional TV channels.We covered 223 regional journalists.We were present in 18 regional centers.
The Center has worked with students, particularly by conducting an essay competition
“Where Am I and the Constitut-I-on”.
The Centre organized a public celebratory concert performance at the National Philharmonic
dedicated to the 20th anniversaryof the Constitution of Ukraine.Famous and defining constitutional
events were presented by means of classical music and sand drawings.
6

For 2017, we plan to:
Continue awareness campaign “ConstitutiON” at the national and regional levels;
Monitor the implementation of constitutional amendments and implementing laws concerning justice;
Engage in the effective implementation of the new institution of constitutional complaint;
Work towards the establishment of a democratic procedures for conducting referenda;
Continue monitoring the implementation of the new law on financing of political parties and
conducting the information campaign;
Engage in the electoral reform.
•
•
•
•
•
•
7

Year 2016 in governance and public administration
Area experts: Ihor Koliushko, Victor Tymoshchuk, Victoriia Derets, Yevhen Shkolnyi
In the context of Ukraine’s achievements in the public administration area, the year 2016 is defined
primarily by the following positive results:
On May 1, 2016, the new law “On civil service” entered into force. The CPLR, among other entities, has
put in significant effort into preparation and advocacy of this law. As such, the following innovations
have become mandatory for civil service: exclusively competitive selection for all positions, including the
top ones; clear delimitation of civil service position from other positions (e.g., political, patronage, etc.);
introduction of professional managers institution within ministries (i.e.,state secretaries of ministries); and
restriction on political activity by civil servants.
The Commission conducted 18 successful competitions for the positions of state secretaries of ministries,
resulting in 10 appointments in 2016. An open competitive procedure was also tested for the selection
for positions of heads of local state administrations. Results of the Commission’s first six months of work
have also revealed certain gaps that will need to be removed. In particular, these include setting forth
more clear criteria for evaluating the candidates and reducing subjective elements in evaluation; complete
guarantees of anonymity in testing and solving of situational tasks; taking into consideration candidates’
integrity and reputation; etc.
Under the Law of December 10, 2015, executive bodies of village, settlement, and city councils took
over the authority for registration of residence of individuals on April 4, 2016. Starting on April 30, 2016,
decentralization also occurred in the area of state registration of real estate and state registration of legal
entities and private entrepreneurs. It has now become much easier to integrate all these administrative
services within the centers for provision of administrative services (CPAS), which is undoubtedly positive
for citizens.
In June 2016, the Government approved the Strategy for Public Administration Reform for 2016-2020.
The CPLR has also participated in its development and advocacy.
During the reporting year, the CPLR has continued to focus on supporting the development CPAS in
Ukraine. In particular, with the financial support of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, 17 discussion
seminars for CPAS leaders and representatives of joint territorial communities and territorial units of
regional central executive bodies were conducted, which were attended by 711 persons. Based on the
results of each event, recommendations relating to the development of adequate CPAS were also provided
to regional state administrations, heads of cities and of district state administrations. The transfer of best
practice of the CPASs of the cities of Lutsk and Vinnytsia, as well as of Volyn region was an especially
important component. Starting February 1, the EU project for the creation of model CPASs in three regions
of Ukraine (Volyn, Rivne, and Lviv) is being implemented.
On July 28, 2016, Kyiv City Council approved the Concept on development of the centers for the provision
of administrative services in Kyiv for 2016-2018 and the list of administrative services in Kyiv that are
provided by Kyiv’s CPAS. The Centre’s experts, among others, also actively participated in the development
and advocacy of these two acts.

From April to June 2016, as part of the MATRA Programme of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the
CPLR conducted training for civic activists in five areas, including on administrative services. On December
17-18, 2016 a conference was conducted, where civic activists from all regions of Ukraine discussed the
opportunities for effectively influencing the government, including in the area of administrative services.
In addition to positive achievements in the area of public administration in 2016, problems and obstacles
to effective reform in this area should also be mentioned. First of all, these include:
1) On July 14,2016,an extremely dubious law on“passport reform” was adopted,at the insistence of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs and the State Migration Service (hereinafter – SMS). Its negative consequences
include: 1) introducing an exclusively digital internal passport, which complicates access to passport
services,unnecessarilyincreases the passport cost,and requires major budgetaryexpenses for infrastructure
needed to work operate with these passports; 2) absence of graphical information on the registration of
residence in the passport, which will result in having to use additional certificates of residence in paper
form, as well as in additional visits to regional SMS offices by rural area residents; 3) legalization of the
State Enterprise “Document” (a parasite entity under the SMS), which now illegally receives UAH 400 per
each external passport issued through its offices, and UAH 150 per each internal passport issued.
The SMS has also continued with its practice of ignoring the government policy on establishment of
CPAS and integration of passport services into these units (as provided for by the Cabinet of Ministers Order
No. 523 of 2014). Instead of placing its working stations within the CPAS, the SMS has forced the purchase
of expensive equipment (in the range of UAH 200-400 thousand) by local self-government bodies and
district state administrations as the main approach.
9

2) The Ministry of Justice’s positive actions to ensure decentralization of administrative services in
the area of business and real estate registration was partly clouded by certain dubious experiments and
inactions:
-decentralization of administrative services in the area of registration of civil status acts has not started
during the reporting year. Instead, the MOJ initiated a so-called pilot project “Marriage in 24 Hours”, which
is extremely dubious from the legality standpoint in relation to collecting extra fees from the citizens;
- the MOJ has not ensured the transfer to local budgets of proceeds from the provision of information
from the MOJ’s registries, although these functions are now performed by local self-government bodies
and district state administrations;
- the MOJ continued to delay working on preparing the draft law “On administrative procedure”.
3) the practice of development of so-called “accredited entities” (i.e., municipal- and state-owned
enterprises in the registration services area) has proven to be very controversial. For example, the costs
for municipal company “Done!” (operating under Kyiv Regional Council) amounted to UAH million – even
though the amount spent for keeping an office for citizens in a regional center could have been used to
set up at least 15-20 adequate CPAS in the region’s district centers and communities. It is already obvious
that the policy of “accredited entities” involves a number of threats, including: 1) bankruptcy risk, i.e. futile
investment; 2) loyalty to illegal payments; 3) washing out funds from local budgets, as 60% of collected
administrative fees is retained by these enterprises; and 4) impeding complete integration of vital services,
due to the fact that such enterprises are not interested in providing free services (such as rent subsidies
and other government assistance), etc.
For 2017, the key objectives in the public administration area are as follows:
• in the area of “central government and civil service”: reform of ministries aimed at establishing of
institutional capacity for formulation and implementation of policy; introduction of efficient operation
of state secretaries of ministries; improvement of the competition procedure, notably for the “A” category
positions;
• in the area of “administrative services and administrative procedure”: progress in the work on the draft
laws “On administrative procedure” and “On administrative fees”; continued support for the creation of
CPAS, including within unified territorial communities, as well as decentralization and integration of new
services.
10

Year 2016 in justice
Area Experts: Roman Kuybida, Oleksandr Banchuk, Maksym Sereda,Tetiana Ruda
In 2016, a fairly good foundation was laid down on the constitutional level for introduction of
comprehensive judicial reform, although the real results will appear only following the implementation of
constitutional amendments on justice, which could take three to five years. Whether or not this result will
be a positive one depends on the persistence of civil society and international partners.
One year ago, the Center, along with its partners from the Reanimation Package of Reforms, called
upon Parliament to adopt constitutional amendments on justice along with the package of necessary
implementing laws, setting forth concrete proposals for the content of these laws. A significant portion of
these demands have been implemented.
First, the law on amending the Constitution in the area of justice was adopted on June 2, which laid
down the mechanism for renewing the judicial ranks, strengthened the independence of judges and
narrowed the scope of judicial immunity. On one hand, reform of justice system through constitutional
amendments became an attempt to bring the judiciary into compliance with European standards, and
on the other – created a foundation for cleansing the judicial ranks through evaluations, competitions,
and the possibility to dismiss a judge in case of his or her inability to verify the origin of his or her
property.
Second, the new law on judiciary and status of judges provides for a transition to a three-tier
court system, with the new Supreme Court at the top that must be formed on a competitive basis in
2017. The competition was announced in November, and for the first time ever, not only judges, but also
lawyers and legal scholars were allowed to apply. The new Supreme Court is to replace the existing
Supreme Court and three high specialized courts that used to serve as the cassation instance. In other
words, the legislature accepted recommendations of the Venice Commission and demands by the CSOs
concerning the three-tier system. Instead, the High Court for Intellectual Property Cases and the High
Anti-Corruption Court will be introduced as new high courts, but these will obviously act as the first
instance rather than a cassation court for the narrowly defined categories of respective disputes.
Third, the same laws also provide for a qualification evaluation of judges. The Civic Integrity Council -
a body of civil society organizations’ representatives established by law – will participate in evaluations
of judges. The CPLR took part in the establishment of this body. Two of our experts (R.Kuybida and
M.Sereda) became members of this Council. The Civic Integrity Council will issue opinions and provide
information about the integrity of judges and candidates for judicial positions. While these will not be
decisive, the votes of two thirds of members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges will be
required to overcome them.
Fourth, the legal framework for the introduction of private bailiffs has been created. Launch of the
institution of private bailiffs may become a very important reform, since according to various
assessments, 80 to 98 % of court judgments are not being enforced in Ukraine. Ukraine followed the
path of those countries that have chosen a mixed (public-private) model of enforcement of court decisions.
It is anticipated that, with the development of private bailiffs institution, the state’s share in this area will
be decreasing and, perhaps, the state enforcement service will even disappear entirely over time.
Competition should also reduce corruption in this area and increase the effectiveness of enforcement
of judgments. But it is important that the development of private bailiffs institution is not artificially
restrained by the state.
11

As part of the Council for Judicial Reform (of which expert R. Kuybida is a member), we joined the
development of the laws “On the Judiciary and Status of Judges” and “On the Superior Council of Justice”,
which were adopted in 2016, as well as the draft law“On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine”.
As part of the awareness campaign “ConstitutiON”, we visited all regions of the country, explaining
various aspects of judicial reform and key challenges. Judicial reform has also been one of the key topics
during four trainings for civic activists from different parts of Ukraine, conducted as part of the project
“Strengthening the capacity of civil society organizations in the regions of Ukraine to influence the state
authorities and local self-governments in order to accelerate reforms”.
In 2016, the problematic areas in the implementation of judicial reform included: significant delay with
the adoption of necessary laws to implement constitutional changes introducing the bar’s monopoly at
the constitutional level, postponing ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,
preserving a purely political way of appointment and dismissal of the Prosecutor General, failure to ensure
continuity of justice in some regions,unfilled vacancies,preserving the sense of impunity within the judicial
system caused by the passive position taken by the High Council of Justice and the High Qualification
Commission of Judges in disciplinary procedures.
The most anticipated events of 2017 in the area of judicial reform should be as follows:
• formation and launch of of the new Supreme Court;
• launch of the initial qualification evaluation of judges under the new rules and with participation of
the Civic Integrity Council;
• development of a legislative framework for the creation of the High Anti-Corruption Court;
• launch of the full-fledged e-justice;
• introduction of mechanism for review of verdicts against arbitrarily convicted individuals, beginning
of the work of the first few hundreds of private bailiffs.
12

Year 2016 in criminal justice
Area Experts: Oleksandr Banchuk, Mykola Khavronyuk, Borys Malyshev
This year has not fully met the expert community’s expectations regarding changes in the criminal justice area.
For example, reform of the criminal block of the National Police was completely failed, and the idea to create
detective units in the police (bycombining operatives and investigators) remains onlyon paper.At the same time,the
draft Law No.2897“On amendments to some legislative acts concerning the introduction of criminal infractions”,prepared
bytheCentre’s experts,has received high scores from the experts oftheCouncil ofEurope.The adoption of this lawwill
allowto humanize criminal legislation and to significantlyincrease the effectiveness of pre-trial investigation bodies.
On the other hand,the Division for Human Rights was created within the police structure,staffed with personnel
selected on a competitive basis.The Division’s main tasks are to exercise control over adherence to human rights in
the police activity,as well as to support of the activity of the temporary (pre-trial) confinement facilities.
In addition, despite the absence of competitive selection procedure for the Police Head position in the Law on
the National Police, the Minister of Interior announced an advisory competition for this position at the end of the
year. The Advisory Competition Commission includes three representatives of the Ukrainian civil society and three
representatives from Ukraine’s international partners (Denmark,USAand Canada).Candidates from outside the police
system were also given the opportunity to participate in the competition.
OnitsNovember23meeting,theGovernmentapprovedamendmentstothe2015ResolutionNo.266“Onapproving
the list of areas of knowledge and specializations used for training of candidates for higher education”.According to
these amendments,“Law Enforcement”specialization was made equivalent to “Law”specialization.This meant that
graduates of police higher education institutions could continue occupying traditional legal positions of judges and
prosecutors, engage in advocate activity, and participate in competition for positions on the new Supreme Court.
These changes were viewed by the publicas a genuine threat to justice reform in Ukraine,as it will not be possible to
substantivelyrenewthejudicialranksandprosecutorialbodies,aswellastoreformtheprivatebarbyresortingtolaw
enforcement personnel (or persons with degrees in law enforcement).The curriculum and educational philosophy
for training candidates for specializations in“law”and in“law enforcement activity”differ significantly.In light of this,
expert communityrepresentatives were able to convince the Government to modifyits decision regarding the listing
of specializations post-factum.
To appoint Yuriy Lutsenko to the position of Prosecutor General, the Parliament adopted amendments to the
Law on Prosecution on May 12, which significantly lowered the requirements for candidates for this position; for
example,requirements for having legal education and experience in the field of law were removed.The operation of
the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors and the Council of Prosecutors,which should ensure a
transparent selection for all positions in the prosecution bodies,was also postponed byoneyear (untilApril 15,2017).
Atthesametime,temporarycompetitioncommissionsperformedtheselectionofstaffonlyforvacantpositionsinthe
local prosecutor’s offices (i.e.,excluding regional prosecutor’s offices and the Prosecutor General’s Office).As a result of
thiscompetition,itwaspossibletoupdatethemembershipoflocalprosecutionbodies;627candidateswereselected
for appointment as prosecutors in local prosecutor’s offices,of which 77% had no previous prosecutorial experience.

On June 2, Parliament adopted the Law on Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine (on justice),
which also became an important step in the reform of the prosecution. Under the provisions of this law,
the prosecution becomes a part of the justice system, is fully divested of the powers relating to general
supervision, representation of citizens’ interests in courts, and supervision over places of confinement.
However, to divest the prosecution of its authority for supervision over the places of confinement, a law
establishing a dual system of regular penitentiary inspections needs to be adopted.
From September 1, a total 402 legal aid bureaus within the Ministry of Justice system became
operational. In conjunction with 100 legal aid centers (operating from July 1, 2015), they have taken over
the prosecution’s the authority for representing citizens’ interests in civil and administrative cases.
On March 1, the Law of Ukraine “On State Bureau of Investigations” (co-authored by the Centre’s experts)
entered into force.Among others, this law also aims at bringing the prosecution’s activities in line with the
Constitution of Ukraine, as it envisaged the elimination investigative units in prosecutor’s office. However,
as of the end of the year, the Bureau still has not been created, and the Competition Commission was
unable to even elect leadership of the new body.
The draft law No. 2033а “On amending the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (concerning ensuring the
right to a just verdict to certain categories of convicted persons”) (prepared with participation of CPLR experts)
had been waiting in Parliament for its adoption in the second reading for the whole year.Despite numerous
appeals and public actions organized by human rights organizations, Parliament members are hesitating
to support this draft law due to the negative effect from the “Savchenko Law”. Thus, unjustly convicted
persons must continue waiting for the possibility of having their verdicts, which were issued in accordance
with the 1960 Criminal Procedure Code in violation of European standards, reviewed.
14

For 2017, the following initiatives remain relevant:
• reform of the criminal police;
• election of the State Bureau of Investigation’s leadership and launching the formation of this body;
• launching the work of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors and the
Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine;
• full adoption of Law No. 2897 on criminal infractions in final reading;
• full adoption of Law No. 2033a relating to ensuring the right to a just verdict to certain categories of
convicted persons in final reading.
15

Year 2016 for anti-corruption
16
Area experts: Mykola Khavronyuk, Dmytro Kalmykov, Olena Soroka
Year 2016 has, once again, failed to become a groundbreaking one for the anti-corruption area. Ukraine
ranked 131st out of 176 countries in the global Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) for 2016 (compared to
130th out of 168 countries in 2015). For a government that has been declaring combatting corruption as
its number one priority for the third consecutive year, this represents a total failure.
The power in the state still continues to belong to oligarchs,who exercise it through dependent political
parties and their nominees in government agencies. In this context, the introduction of state financing for
political parties, which took effect in 2016 pursuant to an October 8, 2015 law, was an important event. In
September-December 2016, CPLR experts carried out monitoring of implementation of the new political
party financing rules.
Perhaps the only real accomplishment in the anti-corruption area was the completion of the first
round of electronic asset declarations by persons charged with carrying out state functions who occupy a
position of responsibility or heightened responsibility. This includes all top officials within the state, such
as Parliament members, judges, prosecutors, and categories A and B civil servants.
Nonetheless,year 2016 began with the government attempting to postpone electronic declarations “for
later”.As a result, the CPLR members were forced to participate in a campaign demanding that the President
of Ukraine vetoes the disgraceful anti-European law No. 3755, which was destroying the electronic declaration
system.
As of now, despite hundreds of instances of non-filing of declarations, as well as of highly strange
declarations, the number of verifications by the National Agency for Prevention of Corruption (NAPC),
drawn up minutes of administrative violations, or initiated criminal proceedings under the articles of the
Criminal Code and the Code on Administrative Offenses relating to declaring false information and failure
to file declarations is not anywhere near that number.Even the procedure for carrying out the NAPC control
and complete verification of a person’s declaration is itself not set out (or, to be precise, it has not been
registered by the MOJ, mostly under made-up pretexts).
One and a half years after the launch of competition for positions of NAPC members, this body is still
missing its final fifth member.CPLR Scientific Development Direct Mykola Khavronyuk took part in election
of NAPC members and received the highest score among all candidates on the basis or ranking; however,
his candidacy ultimately was not supported by the competition commission due to non-transparent political
deals among its members representing the President and the Government.
As in previous years, thousands of initiated proceedings into corruption crimes are terminated by being
dismissed on the grounds of either absence of crime elements or relief from criminal responsibility,or relief
from serving the sentence, or a small fine, while only a handful of cases end up with severe punishments.
The principle of inevitability of criminal responsibility and punishment is largely non-functional with
respect to corruption crimes.
NACB has never been granted its long-awaited right to independently obtain information from
communication channels (i.e., wiretapping) and conduct undercover investigative operations – despite
the Memorandum on Economic and Financial Policy and the Technical Memorandum of Understanding
between Ukraine and the International Monetary Fund, and even though the draft law providing this right
to NACB has been introduced in Parliament back in June 2016.

Contrary to the motions by investigators, detectives, and prosecutors, the courts often fail to impose
pretrial detention as the precautionary measure against those suspected of grave corruption crimes, to
suspend them from office, and to seize their property in a timely manner – or, without justification, lift the
seizure at the defense’s request.
In Ukraine’s population’s opinion, the courts are perceived as corruption personified. This is precisely
why one of the key elements of the 2016 judicial reform has been limiting the judicial immunity. Lately,
however, the Constitution’s provisions concerning immunity have been deliberately distorted by the High
Council of Justice in order to safeguard the judges from detention, particularly in cases of grave corruption
crimes.
This had forced the public to rally behind the idea of establishing anti-corruption courts. However, there
is no certainty that their independence will not be lost in the same manner as happened with the NAPC’s
and the NACB’s independence and aggressiveness.
The Law of Ukraine “On State Bureau of Investigation” that has been adopted quite a while ago (CPLR’s
experts served as its co-authors) is yet to be implemented, while the potential resources of the State
Bureau of Investigation in countering corruption are not being utilized.
During January-July 2016,the CPLR’s experts conducted anti-corruption expert evaluations of more than
one hundred draft laws introduced in Parliament, with the expert opinions submitted to the relevant
specialized parliamentary committees. Several dozen of anti-corruption expert evaluation opinions
concerning various regulations and draft regulations, including decisions of local self governance
bodies from all regions of Ukraine, have also been prepared. This undertaking has helped to
prevent the use of hundreds of corruption schemes, both petty and major. The CPLR’s experts have
repeatedly spoken about the problems of corruption-causing factors in existing and draft legislative and
regulatory acts during roundtables and workshops, and Mykola Khavronyuk emphasized them in his
speech during the parliamentary hearings on the State of Implementation of Anti-Corruption Policy
Principles in Ukraine in May 2016.
Unfortunately, the percentage of corruption schemes identified by the experts represents only a
few percent of the total number of corruption schemes that are actually utilized in the country;
preventing the use of thousands of other such schemes was not possible.
17

Perhaps the detection efforts will improve in the future thanks to the adoption of drafts laws prepared
with the CPLR’s experts participation – No. 4038а “On Protection of Whistleblowers and Disclosure of
Information about Harm or Threat to Public Interests” and No.4039а «On Amendments to the Budget Code
of Ukraine to provide for financing of the whistleblower protection” (July 20, 2016).
It is impossible to develop negative attitudes towards corruption amongst the population or to give
people hope for a better future in a situation when they know from the media about the lack of results of
the number one priority reform – i.e., anti-corruption.
All of the above, as well as other evidence demonstrating the failures in the implementation of the
government’s anti-corruption policy are a result of the lack of real political will to counter corruption.Aside
from empty words and slogans, all actions and decisions by the President, Parliament and Government,
as well as by the vast majority of other government authorities and local self-governance bodies suggest
unwillingness to change the status quo in the anti-corruption area, and to instead continue using the
power to serve their political and private interests.
The best illustration of the government’s real attitude towards corruption as a lifestyle comes from the
anecdotes by former top officials who tried – and failed – to destroy the corruption schemes.
The opposition also plays along with the government. Thus, 48 Parliament members representing the
opposition have introduced a constitutional petition before the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, regarding
alleged unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Law “On prevention of corruption”. In July-August
2016, the CPLR’s experts prepared and sent to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine an opinion confirming
the constitutionality of all provisions of this Law.
In 2016, the Centre’s experts also carried out a detailed analysis of corruption in Ukraine, its forms and
types, causes and consequences, and system of corruption prevention. At the end of year, work started on
preparing a shadow report to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation of state anti-corruption policy,
which must show an objective picture of the actions, decisions, and inaction by government institutions in
this area.
As of January1,2017,more than half of the actions envisioned under the FrameworkofStateAnti-Corruption
Policy in Ukraine (Anti-Corruption Strategy) for 2014-2017 and the State Program on the Implementation of
State Anti-Corruption Policy in Ukraine (Anti-Corruption Strategy ) for 2015-2017,which were supposed to be
undertaken during the four years are yet to be implemented, even though the final planned year of their
implementation has already started.
18

At the same time, in the absence of political will (internal will for self-cleansing) and established
negative public attitude towards corruption (external will), all legislative and institutional measures will
continue to be seen only as “cutting a dash” by Ukraine’s international creditors.
Consequently, priorities for the anti-corruption area for 2017 should be as follows:
• strengthening the pressure against the government to force it to abandon the use of corruption
schemes and to fulfill its anti-corruption commitments before the society;
• implementation of any outstanding actions under the State Anti-Corruption Policy in Ukraine (Anti-
Corruption Strategy) for 2014-2017, as well as drafting (in cooperation with international partners)
and adoption of the Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2018 and subsequent years;
• creation of anti-corruption infrastructure that would ensure effective control of income and assets of
persons authorized to exercise state and local self-governance functions, as well as inevitability of
their responsibility for corruption and corruption-related offenses (including creation of the SBI and
anti-corruption courts);
• liquidation of the majority of existing state enterprises, overall reduction in the state’s share in the
economy and in the state regulation of the economy, and strengthening of economic competition;
• ensuring the independence of political parties from oligarchs; of legislative, executive, and judicial
branches from the President; of judges from the President and prosecutor; and of prosecutors - from
higher-ranking prosecutors.
19

Year 2016 in information and e-governance
Area experts: Anna Barikova, Maryana Zakharchenko (Demkova)
Year 2016 has been a momentous one for the area of information law in Ukraine.Electronic declarations,
a number of electronic administrative services and services in the environmental area, and a procedure
for review of electronic petitions by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine have been introduced.At the same
time, these changes were fragmentary in nature. Therefore, there is still no unified vision of information
law reform in terms of introducing e-democracy and e-governance.
In the information law area, the main achievements of 2016 are related to advocating before the
Ukrainian Government the necessity of adoption of the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine
“On Approving the Procedure for review of electronic petitions addressed to the Cabinet of Ministers
of Ukraine”, as well as of the Concept Paper on e-democracy development and the action plan for its
implementation.
The CPLR experts were focused on the following activities:
• strategic planning for information law reform,as highlighted in Anna Barikova’s monograph“Electronic
State: New Effectiveness of Governance”;
• regulatory support in the area of e-democracy and e-governance;
• monitoring of regulations and amendments on information law subjects;
• articles in scholarly and peer-reviewed journals, analytical notes and memos on e-democracy and
e-governance issues;
• conferences and practical workshops to discuss information law reform.
The Centre’s experts have formulated suggestions to the draft resolution ofthe Cabinet ofMinisters ofUkraine No.457
“On Approving the Procedure for review of electronic petitions addressed to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”and
became part of a working group for the drafting of the Concept Paper on e-democracy development and the action
plan for its implementation.
The CPLR’s representatives actively participated in practical workshops on legal support of information activities
“Electronic document management”, “Electronic public procurement and legal practice realities: main problems,
abuses, and ways of solutions”,“Development of the system of electronic administrative services: current state and
problemsofdevelopmentinUkraine”,“Proceduresforhearingdomain-relateddisputesinthemodernInternetecosystem:
challenges and opportunities”, “Judicial protection of taxpayers’ rights in the information activity area”,“Copyright in
gaming”,“Post-lecture on legal freaks: how millennials will destroy the legal business”,“Problems of establishing and
special issues relating to ITpractice areas in law firms”.
CPLR experts were actively involved in publicizing the information law reform in Ukraine through electronic
and print media. CPLR is an organization that actively participates in the activities of E-Democracy group of the
Reanimation Package ofReforms.In 2017,the experts’activities will focus on the formation of a steadylegal framework
for the implementation of e-democracy and e-governance tools,as well as on monitoring of information law reform.
20

Publications
1. Monitoring Report on implementation of the Law ‘On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of
Ukraine Relating to Preventing and Countering Political Corruption’ of October 8, 2015 №731-VIII
/ M. Khavronyuk, Yu. Kyrychenko, D. Kalmykov, O. Soroka, B. Bondarenko.– K.: O. Moskalenko, 2016.
– 82 p.
2. Science of administration and administrative law. General part (by statements of professor
Yuriy Paneyko) / Edited by V. Bevzenko, I. Koliushko, O. Radyshevska, I. Grytsenko, P. Stetsiuk.– Kyiv:
VD ‘Dakor’, 2016.– 464 p.
3. Executive Authority (theoretical and constitutional aspects) / V. Shapoval // Edited by the
Board of CPLR – K.: O. Moskalenko, 2016.– 82 p.
4. Referendum: Ukrainian experience and European standards / V. Shapoval // Edited by I.
Koliushko, N. Pashkova.– K., 2016.– 66 p.
5. E-State: New Management Effectiveness: monography / A. Barikova. – Kyiv: Yurinkom, Inter,
2016.– 224 p.
6. Communicating Sensitive Issues: The Challenges Facing Think Tanks / ErmyArdhyanti,Mykola
Stepanov, Francesca Uccelli, and Radka Vicenová.– 2016.– 71 p.
7. Key Legal Reforms 2014-2015: How Have the European Standards Been Implemented? /
O.Banchuk, A.Barikova, I.Dmitrieva, Y.Kyrychenko, R.Kuibida, M.Sereda.– 2016.- 74 p.
1
5 6 7
2 3 4
21

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform’s participation in coalitions
and in promoting the development of civil society in Ukraine
Reanimation Package of Reforms
Ukrainian Think Tanks Liaison Office in Brussels
The Centre of Policy and Legal Reform takes an active part in the development of civil society in Ukraine.
Particularly, the Centre participates in two powerful coalitions that advocate for democratic reforms in
Ukraine, both domestically and abroad.
The CPLR one of the founders and leading members of the CSO coalition “Reanimation Package of
Reforms” (hereinafter RPR) and the Ukrainian Think Tanks Liaison Office in Brussels (hereinafter Office).
At the beginning of 2014, following the Revolution of Dignity, the CPLR’s experts were among the
initiators of the creation of RPR coalition, aimed at developing the civil society and promoting democratic
reforms in Ukraine. During three years of the RPR’s existence, it has become a very powerful coalition of
73 CSOs, which promotes and advocates for reforms. Head of the CPLR Board Ihor Koliushko served as a
co-chair of the RPR Board in 2016, while members of the Centre’s Board chair or participate in seven of
the RPR’s working groups: public administration reform, judicial reform, reform of law enforcement bodies,
anti-corruption reform, constitutional reform, e-democracy, and RPR-Kyiv.
The RPR’s experts are not only engaged in the preparation and development of dozens of draft laws in
the most important areas of state-building changes,but also force the executive and legislative authorities
to implement these changes, as well as support their implementation.
A lot of changes in the key areas would not have been implemented but for the RPR’s initiative, support,
or pressure. Of the laws proposed by the RPR, more than eight dozen have been already adopted, including
72 by the Parliament’s VIII convocation.
In 2014, the CPLR served as an initiator and co-founder of the Ukrainian Think Tanks Liaison Office
in Brussels. The Office’s mission is to create a permanent independent center for the Ukrainian non-
governmental analytical sector in the EU in order to promote European integration of Ukraine.
During 2014-2016, the Head of the CPLR Board Ihor Koliushko served the Head of the Office’s Board.At
present, 22 leading Ukrainian analytical centers are members of the Office.
The Office is an association of Ukrainian analytical centers, whose activities are aimed at consolidating
the EU-level efforts level in order to promote reforms and European integration of Ukraine. The Office
has successfully occupied its authentic niche of bringing Ukraine closer to the EU by engaging in civic
expertise. It also promotes dissemination of the expert opinion of its members and engages in EU-level
advocacy for formulating reform priorities and their implementation in Ukraine.
22

The CPLR’s experience in consolidating the civil society in Ukraine
The CPLR has conducted a significant portion of the work relating to coordination and involvement of
regional CSOs in promoting democratic reforms as part of the project “Strengthening the capacity of civil
society organizations in the regions of Ukraine to influence the state authorities and local self-governments
in order to accelerate reforms”, supported by the MATRA Programme of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
The Project’s goal was to provide civic activists from Ukraine’s regions with the knowledge necessary
both for influencing the central government to speed up reforms and for directly addressing the issues of
reform at the local level to the extent allowed by legislation. The project played a catalyst role for their
activization and unification.
The CPLR was able to bring together a range of CSOs from all over Ukraine, involving more than 120
local CSOs from 25 regions of Ukraine, as well as to conduct trainings for them (171 activists participated),
hold a subgrant competition, and provide methodological and expert support to local CSOs. Based on the
result of the subgrant competition,the 10 most interesting projects (out of 41 applications) from all regions
of Ukraine were selected in the following areas: developing and improving citizens’ self-organization,
promoting reform of local self-governance, developing the system of providing administrative services,
establishing the new police and reforming the state inspection bodies, monitoring the implementation of
prosecutorial and judicial reforms, and conducting anti-corruption expert evaluations of decisions of local
self-governance and local executive bodies.
The Office cooperates with partners in the following areas:
• Expanding access by local Ukrainian CSOs to research and experts of analytical centers in Brussels
and EU member states, as well as strengthening partnerships.
• Strengthening the capacity of local Ukrainian CSOs to conduct monitoring and advocacy campaigns
in the regions based on the EU/EU member states’ experience.
• Disseminating the information on the state of reforms in Ukraine among EU policymakers and officials,
their teams, and other interested parties, through the provision of targeted thematic expertise and
analysis on the reform process in Ukraine.
23

Statistics of analytical products and media activity of CPLR
Web-site and Facebook activity
1. 153 662 web-site views and 52 116 users (profiles)
2. More than 4 800 Facebook followers
3. 240 followers of 2 Facebook pages established for individual projects of CPLR
Events where experts of CPLR
participated as invited persons
1. Press-conferences – 15
2. Trainings – 9
3. Seminars – 3
4. Conferences – 16
5. Workshops – 31
6. Presentations – 3
7. Press-breakfasts – 8
8. Round-table conferences – 26
9. Meetings/discussions – 33
Totally experts participated in 144 events.
Events
The following events were held:
1. 26 press-conferences
2. 28 education trainings
3. 4 seminars
4. 11 working groups
5. 4 presentations
6. 6 press breakfasts
7. 1 poll
8. 5 round-table conferences
9. 3 conferences
10. 1 forum
11. 1 quiz
12. 1 musical performance
Totally – 91 events
Analytical products
1. Interviews with experts - 74
2. Articles on the web-site www.pravo.org.ua not published on other media resources – 72
3. Articles of experts or articles with their comments in mass media (printed or online versions) – 170
4. Radio speeches – 43
5. TV appearances – 68
6. Telecasts - 40
7. Short comments for reporters – 177
8. Press releases – 28
9. Visualizations (including infographics) – 14
10. Videos – 12
11. Legislative proposals, concepts, strategies - 12
12. Analytical notices and aide-memories – 171
13. Program documents and analytical reports - 3
14. Articles in scientific or peer-reviewed journals – 2
15. Analytical books or extended reports (more than 80 pages) – 6
Totally – 892 analytical products.
24

Funding sources Total, UAH
Grants received by the CPLR and the CPLR experts 11 730 957
MATRA 3 480 571
IRF 2 376 000
USAID (Pact, Chemonics) 2 374 268
EC 1 435 648
ОSCE 772 140
CoE 578 600
Friedrich Naumann Foundation for
Freedom
429000
SIDA/SKL International 136 880
IFES 122 850
UNDP 25 000
Charitable donations 49 750
Total 11 780 707
Funding for the CPLR work for projects
implemented by other organizations or by
donors directly
453 498
TOTAL Funding 12 234 205
Funding
25

Expenditure categories Total, UAH
Salaries and honoraria 8 053 100
Honoraria tothe CPLR experts and other
experts engaged by the CPLR
7 404 560
Civil law contracts 267 751
Salaries of administrative personnel 380 789
Public events 1 013 078
Information campaigns 319 857
Publications 96 328
Media monitoring 48 000
Visualization 27 300
Audit 25 500
Sociological surveys 25 000
Membership fee 22 705
Office, equipment, and other costs 660 427
Office rent 480 000
Utilities 27 750
Office supplies, stationery 72 563
Information and consulting services 12 570
New equipment purchases 60 765
Banking services 6 779
Total Expenditures 10 291 295
Expenditures*
26
*The explanation of difference between received funding (12,234,205 UAH) and expenditures (10,291,295
UAH) is that part of the project funding received from donors in 2016 is to be spent in 2017. For instance,
under MATRA project 1,400,000 UAH are planned to be allocated in 2017 as subgrants for regional non-
governmental organizations selected through call of proposals ending in the beginning of 2017.

№ Project Name Area Donor Start date Finish date Receipts for 2016,
UAH
Receipts for 2016,$ Receipts for 2016,
EURO
1 Ukraine —EU
Speedometer:
Constitutional and
Judicial Reforms
Judiciary/
Constitutional reform
The European
Commission
01.01.14 01.01.16 385 348,00 $12 690,14 € 13 959,15
2 Serving as a resource
center for NGOs on
public monitoring
of administrative
services
Public administration United Nations
Development
Programme
30.03.15 31.12.15 25 000,00 $1 012,15 € 925,93
3 Civil society
monitoring of the
administrative
services provided by
the Ministry of justice
of Ukraine as an
effective mechanism
of affecting their
quality
Public administration USAID/ Chemonics 15.09.15 15.03.16 321 406,00 $8 712,79 € 7 970,59
4 Public anti-corruption
expertise of the draft
laws: Phase ІII
Combatting
corruption
International
Renaissance
Foundation
01.09.15 30.06.16 153 500,00 $5 685,19 € 5 168,35
5 Strengthening the
role of civil society in
constitution-building
through conducting
the informational
campaign
Constitutional reform USAID/ Pact 15.10.15 30.06.16 2 052 862,00 $82 755,25 € 75 232,05
6 Ukraine Local
Empowerment,
accountability
and Development
(U-LEAD) programme,
Component 2 —
Administrative
service centres and
awareness raising
of citizens on local
self-governance
Public administration SIDA/SKL
International
01.02.16 29.02.16 136 880,00 $5 756,59 € 5 233,26
7 Legal think tanks (TT)
and government —
capacity building
Research of Think
Tanks
Visegrad Fund 01.11.15 28.02.17 0,00 $0,00 € 0,00
8 Strengthening the
capacity of civil
society organizations
in the regions of
Ukraine to influence
the state authorities
and local self-
government in order
to accelerate reforms
All Embassy of the
Kingdom of the
Netherlands (MATRA
Programme)

05.03.16 05.03.18 3 480 571,00 $159 121,40 € 144 655,82
9 Promotion of the
public administration
reform
Public administration IInternational
Renaissance
Foundation
01.07.16 28.02.17 1 618 500,00 $65 394,00 € 58 962,00
10 Monitoring of
implementation
of and awareness
raising on new rules
of political parties
financing
Political parties
financing
The Council of
Europe
12.09.16 10.12.16 287 000,00 $11 184,72 € 10 173,70
11 Preparation of
Alternative (Shadow)
Report on the
Assessment of
Effectiveness of
State Anti-Corruption
Policy
Combatting
corruption
International
Renaissance
Foundation
17.10.16 17.04.17 400 000,00 $15 667,84 € 14 134,27
12 Evaluation of
the current and
prospective rules for
administration of
justice during war
circumstances on
the Eastern Part of
Ukraine
Judiciary International
Renaissance
Foundation
12.10.16 12.01.17 204 000,00 $7 990,60 € 7 208,48
27
Budget for 2016, projects, donors

№ Project Name Area Donor Start date Finish date Receipts for 2016,
UA
Receipts for 2016,$ Receipts for 2016,
EURO
13 Trial Monitoring in
Ukrainian Courts
Judiciary Organization
for Security and
Co-operation in
Europe
01.11.16 20.12.17 764 040,00 $28 673,88 € 27 308,46
14 Centres for
Administrative
Services Delivery
(CASD) as an
Innovative
Instrument of
Cooperation between
Authorities and
Communities in
Ukraine
Public administration The European
Commission
01.02.16 01.08.17 1 050 300,00 $42 790,00 $38 900,00
15 Facilitating the
establishment
of democratic
legislation about
national referendums
holding
Referendums The International
Foundation for
Electoral Systems
01.10.16 30.04.17 122 850,00 $4 606,88 $4 387,50
16 Activity of Centre
for Administrative
Services as an
integrated office
and decentralization
of the provision
of administrative
services
Public administration Friedrich Naumann
Foundation for
Freedom

01.01.16 31.12.16 429 000,00 $15 888,89 $17 477,78
17 Preparation of anti-
corruption training
for prosecutors
Combatting
corruption
The Council of
Europe
01.01.16 31.12.16 16 200,00 $660,00 $600,00
18 Autumn School on
Criminal Law and
Process
Criminal juctice Organization for
Security and Co-
operation in Europe
01.01.16 31.12.16 8 100,00 $330,00 $300,00
19 Strengthening the
implementation of
European standards
of human rights in
Ukraine: Support for
police reform and
the fight against
ill-treatment and
impunity
Criminal juctice The Council of
Europe
01.01.16 31.12.16 118 800,00 $4 840,00 $4 400,00
20 Support to the
omplementation of
the judicial reform in
Ukraine
Judiciary The Council of
Europe
01.01.16 31.12.16 75 600,00 $3 080,00 $2 800,00
21 Consolidation of
working out reforms
in justice in Ukraine
Europe
01.01.16 31.12.16 40 500,00 $1 650,00 $1 500,00
22 Further support for
reform in criminal
justice in Ukraine
Europe
01.01.16 31.12.16 40 500,00 $1 650,00 $1 500,00
23 Dues from members
and donations from
domestic foundations
and organizations
CPLR Dues and donations 01.01.16 31.12.16 49 750,00 $1 776,79 € 1 692,18
24 Income from services
provided to 3rd
parties
CPLR Other 01.01.16 31.12.16 453 498,00 $18 479,13 € 16 796,46
TOTAL 12 234 205₴ $500 396 € 461 286
28
IRF — International Renaissance Foundation
MATRA— Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (MATRA Programme)
UNDP— United Nations Development Programme
EC The — European Commission
CoE The — Council of Europe
OSCE — Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
IFES — The International Foundation for Electoral Systems
FNFF — Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom

Donor UAH EURO
MATRA 3 480 571,00 144 655,82
IRF 2 376 000,00 85 473,10
USAID 2 374 268,00 83 202,64
EC 1 435 648,00 52 859,15
OSCE 772 140,00 27 608,46
CoE 578 600,00 20 973,70
FNFF 429 000,00 17 477,78
Other 453 498,00 16 796,46
SIDA/SKL International 136 880,00 5 233,26
IFES 122 850,00 4 387,50
Dues and donations 49 750,00 1 692,18
UNDP 25 000,00 925,93
Total 12 234 205,00 461 285,97
UAH increase,
UAH
% USD increase,
USD
% EURO increase,
EURO
% Number of
projects
/+/-/ % Number
of donors
/+/-/ %
2014 5 033 159 364 480 331 345 11 8
2015 9 325 518 4 292 359 85,3% 438 724 74 244 20,4% 393 613 62 268 18,8% 14 3 27,3% 9 1 12,5%
2016 12 234 205 2 908 687 31,2% 500 396 61 672 14,1% 461 286 67 673 17,2% 22 8 57,1% 11 2 22,2%
Total 26 592 882 1 303 600 1 186 244
Revenue budget from donors
Growth dynamics for 2014-2016
MATRA
29%
IRF
19%
USAID
19%
EC
12%
OSCE
6%
CoE
5%
FNFF
4% Other
4%
SIDA/SKL
International
1%
IFES
1%
Dues and donations
0%
UNDP
0%

Centre of Policy and Legal Reform
Kyiv, Ukraine, 4 Khreshchtyk St., of. 13
Postal code: 01001
phone: +380 44 278 03 17
+380 44 278 16 55
fax: +380 44 278 16 55
centre@pravo.org.ua
www.pravo.org.ua
facebook.com/pravo.org.ua
twitter.com/pravo_center

Activity report for 2016

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Activity report for 2016 (16)

More from Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Activity report for 2016