Post sponsored by

MIL OSI Translation. Region: Russian Federation –

Deputy Prime Minister – Chief of Staff of the Government Dmitry Grigorenko: The entire control and supervisory system needs to be made more modern.

For 59 types of state control, the procedure of mandatory pre-trial appeal of decisions of supervisory authorities began to operate. This is part of a large-scale reform of control and supervision activities that the Government is pursuing. What opportunities does it provide to citizens and businesses, what does it change for the controllers themselves, what effect does the state expect? These and other questions were answered in an interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta by Deputy Prime Minister and Chief of Staff of the Government Dmitry Grigorenko.

Question: Dmitry Yuryevich, why was the reform required?

D. Grigorenko: This is the right question: reform for the sake of reform itself does not make sense. The system of control and supervision activities with which we entered the 21st century, in fact, was formed back in Soviet times. The basic principles and approaches were defined even then, and, despite the fact that the way of life was changing, they remained the same. This not only negatively affected the quality of the system itself, but also impeded business development and hindered economic growth. There was an understanding that this system needed to be simplified and thereby reduce the administrative burden on entrepreneurs. As a result, on behalf of the President, work began on the inventory of all mandatory requirements, the abolition of outdated and approval of modern standards, formed taking into account the current level of technological development – the so-called “regulatory guillotine”.

Question: This work was planned to be completed by January 1, 2021. Can you tell us about the results?

D. Grigorenko: More than 12 thousand acts fell under the “guillotine” – this is more than 90% of all acts containing mandatory requirements, while most of them are documents from Soviet times that remained in force. Many of them contained requirements that today seem, let’s say, comical. Everyone knows the example with the obligatory thickness of the omelet. However, there are many such stories. For example, outdated acts regulated that when cleaning cabinets, crumbs should be swept from the shelves with special brushes, they were obliged to wash the dishes with rags.

It is clear that such unreasonable rules were a hindrance to business, interfered with normal work. At the same time, they did not help in any way to protect citizens from possible abuse. Of course, it was impossible to confine oneself to only canceling the requirements, because this could lead to a legal vacuum. The previous regulation was replaced by a new one, drawn up taking into account modern realities. As part of this work, almost 450 acts were adopted. This figure, as you can see, is much less than the number of abolished documents.

Question: However, the “regulatory guillotine” is only one of the components of a broader CPV reform. What has been done besides “cutting off” outdated norms?

D. Grigorenko: Indeed, the “guillotine” is only part of the huge work that began back in 2016. I would like to note that the transformation of control and supervisory activities is one of the most significant legislative reforms over the past two decades. The most important milestone was the adoption in 2020 of the law on mandatory requirements, which, in particular, introduces a six-year cycle of their updating. We can say that thanks to him, the mechanism of the “regulatory guillotine” has received a permanent registration in the legislation. This means that the work on the inventory of standards will be carried out on an ongoing basis.

Requirements can now be set only to protect legally protected values: life, health of people, rights and interests of citizens. It is also necessary to estimate the costs of the business for their execution. They must be commensurate with the risks that these requirements prevent. Also, based on the results of five years of work, a law on state control, fundamental in its essence, and its companion law were prepared and adopted. I will not sin against the truth if I say that over the past two decades we have for the first time put in order all the legal acts governing state and municipal control. This is of great importance for the entire legal system of Russia. The law on state control provides for a shift in emphasis from inspections, which are costly both for business and for control bodies, to the prevention and prevention of violations. The maximum coordination of unscheduled events was ensured with the prosecution authorities, which are a kind of independent “filter”. The degree of control intensity and its form are now linked to the risks of possible non-compliance. This is called a risk-based approach. Prior to the adoption of the law, this approach extended only to 25 types of federal control. Now it covers 96 species.

Question: Why was the companion law needed?

D. Grigorenko: His key idea is that control should be carried out within the framework of a single approach, the principles of which I described earlier. Sputnik is introducing amendments to 132 sectoral laws that regulate 96 types of federal control, 30 types of regional control and 7 types of municipal control. In continuation of the reform, we are working on about 500 normative legal acts aimed at implementing the law on state control and the satellite law. A significant part of the government acts required for this have already been adopted. Returning to the law on state control, I would like to note that in its preparation we proceeded from the need to digitize control and supervisory activities, to reduce the intensity of contacts between inspectors and those being inspected. For this, the use of a number of information systems is envisaged, including a unified register of control measures, a unified register of types of control, and an information system for pre-trial appeal.

Question: The system of compulsory pre-trial appeal of actions and decisions of control and supervisory bodies you mentioned is introduced by law from 2023. But in a pilot format, this tool was launched back in August 2020. For what purpose?

D. Grigorenko: We wanted to test the system, see where problematic moments may arise, in order to eliminate them before the full-format launch of the system. The experiment involved 19 ministries and departments, whose activities cover about 90% of all existing control. Among them are the Federal Tax Service of Russia, the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia, Rostekhnadzor, Rosturizm, Rostrud, Rospotrebnadzor, Roszdravnadzor, Rosalkogolregulirovanie, Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Question: What conclusions can be drawn from the results of an almost one-year pilot experiment?

D. Grigorenko: When we started this experiment, we were faced with the task of working out the appeal procedure itself, finding and applying the necessary technological solutions for its implementation, and building clear and understandable processes. As the most important principle in solving these problems, we considered the need to provide a remote form of interaction between the applicant and the control body due to the complete digitalization of the process (the “paperless” process).

In the course of the experiment, it was possible to create a tool for direct remote communication between the applicant and the control body. An understandable environment for resolving disputes has appeared, the processes of which at all stages, from filing a complaint to its resolution, are as transparent as possible. It works as follows. A special service has been launched on the public services portal that allows you to submit a complaint to the supervisory authority in electronic form, as well as track all stages of its consideration and interact with officials without a personal visit to the department. The procedure for handling complaints is clearly regulated: the applicant is given 20 working days to respond. The work of the service is based on the most common life situations that entrepreneurs and citizens encounter in the process of communicating with control authorities. Among such situations, for example, a violation of the inspection procedure, disagreement with the prescription assigned following the inspection. The procedure is as simple and convenient as possible for both applicants and controllers. The new service on the public services portal has become the single point of entry for filing complaints. It allows not only literally in “three clicks” to file a complaint, but also simplifies as much as possible the procedure for interaction between the control body and the person who filed the complaint. The complaint review process can be monitored by the complainant online, including from their smartphone. For control bodies, their own information environment has also been created. It takes into account the specifics of each control body and allows for a uniform approach to the consideration of complaints in various control bodies. To date, 31 control bodies in 85 constituent entities of the Russian Federation are connected to the pre-trial appeal information system. We also received a tool for analyzing the most common grounds for complaints in specific areas and adjusting legislation based on the results of such an analysis. By the way, the pre-trial appeal, both the procedure and the service itself for the implementation of this procedure, are built on the principle that excludes history, when the controller, for example, checked someone, then they complain about him, and he also considers how well he conducted the check.

Question: What effect do you expect to get after the launch of the system of compulsory pre-trial appeal for all control and supervisory authorities?

D. Grigorenko: What are the advantages of such a system: it makes it possible to make the interaction of citizens and businesses with government agencies more comfortable, reduce time and financial costs, and reduce the burden on the courts. According to general rules, if a citizen or entrepreneur does not agree with the decision of the control body or the actions of the inspector, they can apply either to the control body that conducted the inspection, or directly to the court. However, there is no unified procedure for resolving disputes with supervisory authorities – each department sets the terms and procedures for considering complaints independently. All this, in addition to the heavy burden on the courts, leads to additional time and material costs for both citizens and businesses themselves, and control bodies. The mechanism of mandatory pre-trial settlement of decisions will remove these issues. In fact, the pre-trial review system has already proven its effectiveness. For example, in the Federal Tax Service, where this practice has become mandatory since 2014, the number of appeals to the courts has decreased significantly. It is also important that with the help of this mechanism we will be able to obtain objective data on which aspects of the activities of these departments cause the greatest number of complaints. The types of violations, the reasons for the complaints, and what is being disputed will be clear. Working with this invoice, we will understand what needs to be changed, where to work with the inspectors and take measures to improve the efficiency of their work. Globally, the way out is that the requirements are becoming fewer, they are simpler and more consistent with the realities of today, control is carried out using digital technologies and a risk-based approach, when the warning lights about possible violations light up themselves. The world has changed in this area, so the entire control and supervisory system needs to be made more modern.

A source – “Russian newspaper”

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should the grammar and or sentence structure not be perfect.

MIL OSI Russia News