2.4.1. Enforceability of the Supreme Audit Office Inspections
Author: Ministry of Justice
Co-Author: Supreme Audit Office Deadline – performance indicator:
30 September 2013 – Present to the Government an analysis of options how to strengthen enforceability and the way of checks of corrective measures.
Anticorruption effect: Increase efficiency of the Supreme Audit Office inspections. Reasoning:
The Government promised in its programme declaration to present an amendment to the Constitution of the Czech Republic and an amendment to the Supreme Audit Office Act so as to provide for inspections of the use of assets owned by local administration agencies and other public corporations. Both amendments had already been presented on 9 May 2011 (Parliament Documents Nos. 351 and 352, 6th electoral term) to the Parliament. Not even one of these bills has been adopted. But subsequently, proposals solving this matter (parliamentary Presses No. 918 and 919; 969 and 970, sixth term) have been made by parliamentary iniciatives. However, the Government also promised to conduct once a year a regular check of implementation of corrective measures as arising from the Supreme Audit Office’s findings. Irrespective of neither the amendment to the Constitution of the Czech Republic, nor the amendment to the Supreme Audit Office Act have been passed, it would be possible to prepare and present an analysis of options how to strengthen enforceability and the way of checks of corrective measures, because according to the regulations in force, the Supreme Audit Office’s findings are only published in the Supreme Audit Office bulletin and sent to the Parliament, Senate, Government and, upon request, to the ministries, and only a call for correction in the form of a resolution passed by the Parliament’s Control Committee or Government’s measure is the highest sanction possible. Probably the most efficient tool the Supreme Audit Office currently has is the possibility to file a complaint with law enforcement authorities based on identified offences according to sec. 8(1) of the Criminal Procedural Code and the Supreme Audit Office’s obligation to disclose to tax administrators the data from inspection protocols, which pertain to tax administration according to sec. 59 of the Tax Procedural Code.
2.4.2. Registry of Offences
Author: Ministry of the Interior Co-Author: Ministry of Justice Deadline – performance indicator:
31 March 2013 / 30 June 2014 – Present to the Government a draft amendment to the Offences Act, including sanctions for repeated cases of selected major offences, especially by means of different degrees of the existing sanctions or by means of introduction of new sanctions or protective measures; simultaneously with the draft amendment, present to the Government a proposal for a new regulation of the registry of offences and related amendments to certain other acts.
Anticorruption effect: Reduction of offence delinquency. Strengthened supervision over offence proceedings and enforcement of fines.
Reasoning:
The Government promised in its programme declaration to create conditions for creation of a registry of offences as a public administration information system with the aim to increase accountability for recurring offences, including potential accountability for selected kinds of recurring offences under the criminal law. The Ministry of Justice has prepared a proposal for creation of a registry of offences as part of the Registry of Criminal Records, stipulating that recurring offences against property, peace and public order according to the Offences Act can be prosecuted under the criminal law. The Government Legislative Council, however, disapproved of this solution because of serious doubts whether the solution complies with the Constitution (due to violation of the principle of equal treatment before the law) and because of conceptual objections to the proposed criminal prosecution of certain recurring offences. Based on the opinion of the Government Legislative Council and based on presentation of the Minister of Justice, the Government passed at its meeting held on 3 October 2012 Resolution No. 714, ordering that the Minister of the Interior prepare, in cooperation with the Minister of Justice, and present to the Government by 31 March 2013 a proposal for a new regulation of offences, which would address recurrence of selected major offences by means of different degrees of sanctions, as well as certain new sanctions or protective measures. The task will be implemented by amendments to Act No. 200/1990 Coll., on offences, Act No. 269/1994 Coll., on the Registry of Criminal Records, and possibly to certain other special acts. The amendments will result in creation of a central registry of selected offences. Such regulation could be more efficient rather than a prison sentence in the case of recurring offences (if accountability under the criminal law is introduced), it could reduce opportunities for committing further offences, discourage offenders from repeated minor delinquency without their social exclusion.
2.4.3. Disclosing Offers to Sell and Lease State-Owned Property
Author: All ministries
Deadline – performance indicator:
Continually – until enactment of a new regulation of disclosure of information on disposals of state-owned property, disclose the offers of sale and lease on the websites of ministries and organizations controlled by ministries.
Anticorruption effect: Transparency of sales of state-owned property. Higher public control over the disposals of state-owned property.
Reasoning:
Following up Task No. 1.17 of the Government’s Anti-Corruption Strategy for the years 2011 and 2012, it is proposed to continue disclosing offers of sales (and, as a new measure, of leases) of state-owned property, if such property becomes useless for the state and no organization unit of public administration is interested in such property. This way proved efficient not only in terms of transparency of offers, but also in terms of efficiency of generated revenues. Sales and leases of state-owned property lacking transparency are ideal opportunities for corruption practices. Higher transparency along with introduction of price competition can eliminate those opportunities.
2.4.4. Improving Efficiency of Measures to Prevent Corruption and Useless Bureaucracy in Immigration (Visa) Procedures
Author: Ministry of Foreign Affairs Deadline – performance indicator:
Continually – Evaluate the implemented personnel and technical measures to prevent corruption and useless bureaucracy in immigration (visa) procedures and inform the Government and propose improvements of efficiency or introduction of further measures, under the regular reporting on the status and method of implementation of tasks contained in the Anti–Corruption Strategy of the Government.
Anticorruption effect: Higher control of the state over immigrants and enforceability of taxes, contributions, etc.
Reasoning:
Based on Task 3.16 The Government Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2011 and 2012, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has implemented several anti-corruption measures to prevent corruption and useless bureaucracy in immigration (visa) procedures. The measures include monitoring of activities of visa departments at embassies, putting into operation of an electronic registration system for applicants for visa (VISAPOINT), a system of training for employees delegated to embassies, as well as a project of embassy categorization by risk. However, since corruption and useless bureaucracy in immigration (visa) procedures cannot be considered as eliminated already, it is desirable that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs continue the implemented anti-corruption measures and implement further measures whenever a new field appears in which anti-corruption measures are needed. For that purpose the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is required to inform every year the Government about the situation and way of implementation of those measures and propose improvements of their efficiency or further measures.