Chernihiv MPs 'Failed' the Bill on Access to Public Information

Chernihiv MPs "failed" the bill on access to public information

The Verkhovna Rada did not support the bill 2043 titled "On Amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (regarding strengthening state control over compliance with the right of access to public information, protection of personal data, and citizens' appeals)."

The vote on the bill was as follows: for adoption as a basis – 166, for return for revision – 181, for repeated first reading 187. Thus, the bill was rejected, reports Ukrainska Pravda.

Most of the people's deputies from Chernihiv region did not vote for the repeated first reading. Among them were Valeriy Davydenko (BPP), Serhiy Berezenko (BPP), Vasyl Amelchenko (RPL), Oleh Kupriyenko (RPL), and Valeriy Dubil (Batkivshchyna).

Voting "for" the repeated reading were deputies from BPP "Solidarity" Anatoliy Yevlakhov and Oleh Dmytrenko, the deputy from "People's Front" Oleksandr Kodola, and Anna Romanova, who represents "Samopomich."

We add that the changes proposed by 2043a were primarily aimed at strengthening the position of the Office of the Commissioner, which since October of 2015 has been the main supervisory body in the field of implementation of the Law "On Access to Public Information."

In particular, 2043a provided for:

1. To equalize servicemen and other categories of citizens in the sphere of access to public information (by analogy with traffic violations, where military personnel bear the same responsibility as other categories). Currently, servicemen do not bear administrative responsibility, only disciplinary.

Accordingly, employees of neither the State Border Guard Service, nor the Penitentiary Service, nor the Ministry of Defense can be held administratively liable for failing to provide public information.

2. The Ombudsperson would receive the ability to grant a mandate to deliver protocols to regional representatives and regional coordinators, as well as to send administrative protocols by mail.

3. When drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense, it is proposed not to require a signature if such a protocol is sent by mail to the person's place of work in accordance with Article 254 of the Code.

These changes are prompted by the current practice of refusal by officials of state bodies to accept such protocols and to certify receipt of the protocol with a signature, and by the inability to access those persons to deliver the protocol to them, which leads to avoidance of responsibility.

Author: Chernihiv region: events and comments