Analysis uncovers technical problems and legal shortcomings in the unified state register, implying the need for reforms.
This article analyses the problems of functioning of the Unified State Register of Declarations of Persons Authorised to Perform State or Local Government Functions launched by the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) in 2016. The analysis revealed a number of significant legal and technical problems that negatively affect the usability of the Register and violate the rights of the declarants. The paper identifies six key shortcomings of the Register that need to be addressed. It is determined that the initial declaration is not removed from the Register after the submission of its corrected version, which is misleading and creates the basis for double interpretation of the data. It is shown that the period of storage of the declaration in the Register is unreasonably longer than the statutory deadline for its full verification by the NACP. The absence of a legal mechanism for removing declarations from the Register that were mistakenly submitted by persons who are not declarants is highlighted. It is proved that the ‘Data for Declaration’ function in the declarant’s personal cabinet needs to be improved: users sometimes receive irrelevant data, a request for information can be submitted only once, and the generated certificate does not contain sufficient warnings about the incompleteness of the information received. The also author demonstrates the technical imperfection of the implementation of the electronic correspondence tool with the NACP within the personal account, which makes it impossible to fully exercise the right of the declarant to provide explanations. Lastly, the author emphasizes the absence of the possibility of authorisation in the Register using the progressive tool ‘Diia.Signature’, which limits the accessibility of the platform for users. As a result, the author substantiates the need to update the relevant legal acts and conduct a technical revision of the Register in order to ensure the proper functioning of the platform, its compliance with the principles of digital integrity and protection of the rights of declarants.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anatoliy Pashynskyi (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: