Enforcement

The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity calls on adherents to “ensure that enforcement mechanisms provide appropriate responses to all suspected violations of public integrity standards by public officials and others involved in the violations, in particular through:

a) Applying fairness, objectivity and timeliness in the enforcement of public integrity standards (including detecting, investigating, sanctioning and appeal) through the disciplinary, administrative, civil, and/or criminal process;

b) Promoting mechanisms for co-operation and exchange of information between the relevant bodies, units and officials (at the organisational, subnational or national level) to avoid overlap and gaps, and to increase the timeliness and proportionality of enforcement mechanisms;

c) Encouraging transparency within public sector organisations and to the public about the effectiveness of the enforcement mechanisms and the outcomes of cases, in particular through developing relevant statistical data on cases, while respecting confidentiality and other relevant legal provisions.”

Questions for self-assessment:

1. Are legal entities accountable for integrity violations?

There is no liability regime for legal entities.
The legislative framework provides for the administrative, civil or criminal liability of legal entities, but is rarely applied in practice.
The legislative framework provides for the administrative, civil or criminal liability of legal entities, and is rarely applied in practice. The framework includes principles of proportionality and economic and reputational sanctions, but the sanctions are not dissuasive.
The legislative framework provides for the administrative, civil or criminal liability of legal entities, and is applied in practice. The framework includes principles of proportionality and dissuasive economic and reputational sanctions.

2. How is the objectivity and impartiality of enforcement mechanisms ensured?

The legislative framework does not include formal guarantees for the objectivity of enforcement mechanisms.
The legislative framework includes formal guarantees to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of enforcement mechanisms. There are no policies or mechanisms in place to support implementation of these safeguards.
The legislative framework includes formal guarantees to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of enforcement mechanisms. Clear policies and mechanisms are in place to safeguard objective decisions and ensure impartiality in the day-to-day administration of cases. These safeguards are applied occasionally in practice.
The legislative framework includes formal guarantees to ensure the objectivity and impartiality of enforcement mechanisms. Clear policies and mechanisms are in place to safeguard objective decisions and ensure impartiality in the day-to-day administration of cases. These safeguards are applied consistently in all cases.

3. How is the timeliness of enforcement mechanisms ensured?

The length of enforcement proceedings is not subject to any monitoring activity.
Generic timeframes are in place regarding the length of proceedings and corresponding statute of limitations.
There are mechanisms in place for the timely management and resolution of cases, but the clearance rate of cases is low and the disposition time for each case tends to be lengthy, in relation to the specific circumstances of cases.
The mechanisms in place for the timely management and resolution lead to high rate of clearance and reasonable disposition time for cases, based on the specific circumstances of cases.

4. Are oversight mechanisms in place to ensure coherence and consistency within the disciplinary enforcement regime?

There are no oversight mechanisms in place to ensure coherence and consistency across the disciplinary enforcement regime.
A central oversight body for the disciplinary enforcement regime is established with a mandate to ensure coherence and consistency across the disciplinary enforcement regime, but has limited resources and capacity. This undermines coherency and consistency.
A central oversight body is in place, with a clear mandate and appropriate resources and capacity. Dedicated channels are established to provide clarifications to disciplinary enforcement entities on issues such as competence and applicable procedures.
A central oversight body is in place, with a clear mandate and appropriate resources and capacity. Dedicated channels are established to provide clarifications to disciplinary enforcement entities on issues such as competence and applicable procedures. In addition, guidelines and manuals with concepts, definitions and procedures are made available to ensure uniform enforcement of the disciplinary enforcement regime.

5. Within each enforcement regime (disciplinary, civil and criminal) are there mechanisms for co-operation between the relevant bodies, units and officials in place?

There are no co-operation mechanisms in place between the relevant bodies, units and officials.
The legislative framework includes provisions on co-operation among entities involved in each enforcement regime, but co-operation takes place occasionally and on an informal basis.
The legislative framework includes provisions on co-operation among entities involved in each enforcement regime. A case-management tool such as electronic databases or registers enables co-operation and information-sharing.
The legislative framework includes provisions on co-operation among entities involved in each enforcement regime. In addition, a case-management tool such as electronic databases or registers enables co-operation and information-sharing. Information from the case-management system is extracted and used for statistical, transparency, and prevention purposes.

6. How does co-ordination among the disciplinary, civil and criminal enforcement regimes take place?

There are no co-ordination mechanisms in place among different enforcement regimes.
Institutions having responsibilities in different regimes meet on an ad hoc basis, with little impact on effective co-ordination.
Co-ordination between institutions having responsibilities in different regimes is institutionalised and regular formal meetings take place, but there is limited communication in between meetings.
Co-ordination between institutions having responsibilities in different regimes is institutionalised and regular, formal meetings take place. In addition, channels of communication between meetings are established and used regularly.

7. Are enforcement data used to strengthen the integrity system?

There is no collection of any basic information on enforcement (e.g. number of investigations, typology of breaches and sanctions, length of proceedings, intervening institutions).
Data and statistics on enforcement are irregularly collected and rarely, if ever, made public.
Data and statistics on enforcement are regularly collected and publically communicated in an interactive and engaging way. Datasets are also available in a format allowing for re-use and elaboration.
Relevant enforcement data is regularly collected, analysed and summarised, and feeds into the mechanism responsible for co-ordinating the public integrity system together with other relevant data (e.g. asset and tax declarations or procurement-related ones). This data informs timely and risk-based strategies and policies, but also the identification of risk areas and anomalies.

8. Are enforcement mechanisms subject to monitoring and evaluation?

There is no evaluation or monitoring activity of enforcement systems.
Enforcement systems are subject to an irregular evaluation or monitoring activity and not based on specific indicators. The results are not public, and are not used to inform improvement to the enforcement or integrity system.
Enforcement regimes are regularly assessed against performance indicators on issues such effectiveness, efficiency, quality and fairness. The results are made public on an ad-hoc basis, and are sometimes used to inform improvements to the enforcement or integrity system.
Enforcement regimes are regularly assessed against performance indicators on issues such effectiveness, efficiency, quality and fairness. The results are regularly made public and inform improvements to the enforcement and integrity system.

Loading...