State supervision reform
Each company used to deal with control authorities in its business activity: fiscal, labour, firefighting services, environmental, architectural and engineering inspection… And each company has several vivid stories on illegal actions of inspectors and necessity to adjudicate the rights in court. Such stories are told nearly in a similar way: audit, illegal documents of disposition, collecting of evidence, claim, numerous court sessions, legal fees (with little chance to be refunded by the court), winning, appeal claim, winning, cassation claim, another winning… And it seems that it is over, end of the story, but no – new audit is getting started and everything starts again circle-wise. So what should be done if the situation with subsequent won court does not change?
It is essential to eliminate the reasons for cranking out illegal decisions – the impunity of controllers and their total indifference to the results of their work. In order to achieve such goal we offer three measures:
First measure: administrative fine for the enactment of illegal document of disposition. The grounds for consideration of the issue on responsibility is the fact of cancelation of the document of disposition itself by the court. That is, the company’s claim on cancellation of delivered tax notification-decision (decision, improvement notice etc.) is considered along with the issue on responsibility of the signatory of the document being appealed.
Second measure: if person obtain 10 fines (that is, for multiplicity of application of first measure) it shall be dismissed with prohibition of holding similar posts within a certain period of time by the next court decision.
But what about sabotage of the process of holding liable?
If first two measures did not work, there is third measure: regardless of holding liable, the person will automatically be deprived of the possibility to sign documents of disposition in case, if there is a certain number (say, 20) of times, when the court considered it’s previous documents illegal.
Simple and effective measure – to block the activity of certain element, which systematically reproduce the violation and discredit the whole system. In this case, it is not a matter of liability, since the loss of authority by an official is not a violation of the rights of the individual.
Deprivation of the right of signature will occur automatically – the fact that a court cancels a certain number of documents signed by a person is displayed in a public register, which automatically invalidates all future administrative acts of such person. No bureaucracy.
In this way, the controllers will be able to understand the inevitability of the consequences of their actions and will bring the business to liability only in cases where there are legitimate grounds.
More detailed information about the project can be found in our documents:
1. presentation;
2. explanatory note;
3. draft law;
Leave a comment