Complaint about non-placement of ads by Kyiv City Council was found unsubstantiated 

Deficiencies in regulatory framework local councils/municipalities Kyiv

Subject of complaint: Kyiv City Council, Kyiv State Administration 
Complaint in brief: A recruiting company addressed the Council with a complaint against the Kyiv City Council. The company complained that Kyiv state agenciesdemanded additional documents for placing ads not provided for by the legislation. 
According to the Complainant, KMDA does not have the right to demand a developer’s license copy of respective construction decision. The Complainant believed the said requirement was contrary to outdoor advertising placement rules approved by the CMU because such a document provision is not envisaged by them. 
Actions taken: The investigator studied circumstances of the case and found that the relevant wordings of the Advertising Procedure were unclear and might allow abuse. According to existing case law, a license in construction sphere is fully compliant with the requirements prescribed by the Procedure to obtain a corresponding permit. Therefore, the investigator asked KMDA Advertising Department in writing to explain whether they agreed with the relevant judicial practice or otherwise provide necessary clarifications. At the same time, the government informed clarifying legislation norms was outside its competence. 
The Council suggested that Complainant discuss the subject of the complaint within the framework of the working meeting pursuant to Memorandum of Partnership and Cooperation between the KMDA and the BOC. However, the company did not agree. Moreover, the Complainant informed it did not apply to the government agency for an ads placement permit and was not going to do it. 
Result achieved: Taking into account that the Complainant did not want to apply to the local self-government body and refused taking further actions as proposed by the Council, the case was closed. Given the Complainant’s position, based on carried out investigation, the Complaint was found to be largely unsubstantiated.

Next case:: AMCU cancels heat energy public procurement results