Landmark Decisions

The draft Civil Code of Ukraine was submitted by Ruslan Stefanchuk in early April 2025. Even the Ministry of Justice criticized Book Nine in an earlier version of the bill and recommended removing it from consideration. However, the provision remained in the final draft, and identified corruption and governance risks were not addressed.

The updated version (Bill No. 15150) introduces a system where cultural heritage protection is effectively shifted into a digital registry framework: if information about heritage sites is not included in the official registry, such sites may in practice cease to be legally recognized. The registry is intended to consolidate land-use restrictions and integrate multiple state databases. However, the law allows up to two years for full data completion, highlighting significant gaps in current state records.

Due to the long-term failure of the Ministry of Culture, local authorities, and the State Land Cadastre to synchronize data, a large number of archaeological sites, burial mounds, fortifications, monuments, and historical areas remain unregistered. As a result, registrars and notaries may not identify legal barriers to transferring such sites into private ownership.

According to the Ministry of Culture, Ukraine has over 65,000 archaeological heritage sites, while only around 5,000 are reflected in the land cadastre. The remaining 60,000 sites remain legally vulnerable, as land records often classify them as agricultural or development zones.

If Parliament adopts Book Nine in its current form, Ukraine risks losing effective protection over a significant part of its cultural heritage that is not yet included in official registries.

MP Nataliia Pipa (Holos) and MP Inna Sovsun voted against the bill in its first reading, raising concerns over legal risks and problematic provisions. Sovsun also criticized provisions related to family law regulation.

Despite its scale (803 pages) and systemic impact on civil rights, the draft was reviewed by Parliament in less than one month after registration, raising concerns about procedural compliance. An alternative draft law has been registered by MP Nataliia Pipa.

The draft law on ensuring the legality and transparency of the activities of local self-government bodies (#14048) was presented as something that international partners require. In reality, the law became a simulation of continuing the decentralization reform. In particular, the controversial amendment #728, which MP Roman Lozynskyi submitted for confirmation in order to remove it from the draft law as harmful, became a focal point of criticism.

This amendment removes from legal oversight the decisions of local councils adopted in the exercise of their own (self-governing) powers, including land, budgetary, and staffing matters. Legal oversight mechanisms would only apply to decisions made in the exercise of powers delegated by other state authorities. At the same time, such regulation—oversight over delegated powers—is already in place (Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 339 of 09.03.1999).

These changes to the draft law on oversight of the legality of local council decisions were adopted at the insistence of the Association of Ukrainian Cities Association of Ukrainian Cities. Until 2024, all key associations of local self-government supported oversight of both own and delegated powers, as envisaged by the European Charter of Local Self-Government.

As a result of supporting amendment #728, MPs removed most local council decisions from legality oversight. This means that neither citizens nor the state gained a mechanism to respond to clear and obvious violations of the law, such as “toilet schemes,” questionable detailed territorial plans, and other issues.

The “Voice” faction voted against the bill as a whole, except for MP Tamila Tasheva.

The risks of this law are highlighted by Dzerkalo Tyzhnia and Holka.

Bill information page on the website of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

In spring 2025, despite warnings from civil society organizations and experts, the Verkhovna Rada supported the so-called “Ihor Mazepa law” (draft law #12089), which in effect legalized land grabs that had taken place during the Yanukovych era and earlier. Under this law, if less than 10 years had passed since the illegal transfer of land, the state or municipal councils could still defend their property in court, but under one condition: budget funds equal to the market value of the property had to be deposited with the court.

Later, the European Parliament highlighted the risks of this law, stating that it effectively legalizes assets stolen from the state. The Supreme Court also appealed to the Constitutional Court, noting that, in the opinion of the Plenum, the law contains provisions that violate the Constitution.

The Cabinet of Ministers, acknowledging the lack of sufficient funds in the state budget, decided to postpone the implementation of the law through provisions in the 2026 state budget. This was a political move aimed at blocking the effect of the “Ihor Mazepa law.” However, the leader of the “Servant of the People” faction, Davyd Arakhamia, together with two MPs associated with the “Kolomoisky group”—Ihor Frís (“Servant of the People”) and Taras Batenko (“For the Future”)—submitted three amendments intended to block the government’s initiative. One of them was amendment #899 (to draft budget law #14000), which required depositing budget funds with the court (in addition, amendments #903 and #906 were also submitted).

Amendment #899 failed during the first reading of the 2026 budget thanks to an advocacy campaign by several civil society organizations, including the Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, Holka, Free Svydovets, Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide (Ukraine), among others. However, two other amendments, which required submission of documents to the court confirming that budget funds had been deposited, were supported by parliament.

As a result, MPs who voted for these amendments, including amendment #899, were duly informed about the risks this posed to the state’s financial capacity during wartime, as well as about its connection to the interests of the so-called “Kolomoisky group.”

Bill information page on the website of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

In the Carpathians, construction of wind turbines is taking place on alpine meadows (polonynas). This activity is linked, among others, to former Party of Regions member and ex-MP Maksym Yefimov, who is associated with the company “Vitroparky Ukraine” (Wind Parks Ukraine).

A controversial amendment was introduced into draft law #13174, which concerns the protection of land rights for owners of real estate destroyed as a result of hostilities. This amendment may serve the interests of this business. It was reportedly lobbied by two Members of Parliament—former colleague of Yefimov, Antonina Slavitska (elected from the banned Opposition Platform — For Life party), and Olena Shuliak, head of the “Servant of the People” party.

At the time the amendment was being considered, construction of wind turbines had already begun in the Carpathians, including the installation of foundations on Polonyna Runa. Despite a suspended environmental impact assessment procedure, public outcry, and criminal proceedings related to deforestation of primeval forests, the works continued. Adoption of the controversial amendment would have effectively enabled the transition to full installation of wind turbines.

A number of civil society organizations, including the Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group and Holka, opposed the amendment. During parliamentary consideration of the legislative initiative, MP Nataliia Pipa put the amendment to a confirmation vote, where it received 225 votes. It fell short by just one vote and was therefore not adopted.

Bill information page on the website of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

Draft law #12058, co-authored by the Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Agrarian and Land Policy Oleksandra Hrydu, along with MPs Artem Chornomorov and Maryna Nikitina, introduces provisions allowing the cultivation of energy and oil crops on degraded, low-productivity, and technogenically contaminated lands for biofuel production, and potentially for food purposes as well.

Critics argue that the initiative effectively legalizes the continued plowing of lands that should be withdrawn from agricultural use due to exhaustion or environmental hazard. In doing so, it undermines the very concept of land conservation as a process of ecological restoration and return to a natural state. This concern has been emphasized by experts from the Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group.

At the same time, the cultivation of oil and energy crops may further intensify soil degradation, contribute to erosion, and require significant amounts of fertilizers and water. The proposed use of contaminated lands—including those affected by war—also raises potential health risks.

The authors of the draft law propose 10-year lease agreements at minimal rates, along with state subsidies to support monoculture expansion of crops such as sunflower, rapeseed, willow, and others.

Overall, the draft law raises concerns about corruption risks and is seen by critics as transforming a nature conservation measure into a mechanism for cheap industrial exploitation of land rather than genuine ecological restoration.

Bill information page on the website of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

Draft Law No. 12414, registered by MP Maksym Pavliuk (Servant of the People), was amended before its adoption with provisions submitted by MP Maksym Buzhanskyi. The amendments significantly expanded the powers of the Prosecutor General over the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and investigations conducted by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).

Under the adopted provisions, the Prosecutor General became the direct supervisor of SAPO prosecutors, gained authority to issue binding instructions, close certain proceedings, transfer NABU cases to other prosecutors, and remove restrictions on transferring NABU investigations to other law enforcement agencies.

SAPO publicly warned that the changes would effectively place the anti-corruption prosecution service under the authority of the Prosecutor General and create risks for the independence of investigations involving senior public officials.

The legislative initiative emerged shortly after NABU and SAPO announced corruption charges against former Minister for National Unity Oleksii Chernyshov. It also followed investigative actions conducted by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) against NABU employees. The ambassadors of the G7 countries publicly expressed concern regarding developments affecting Ukraine’s anti-corruption institutions.

A broad coalition of civil society organizations, including the Legislative Initiatives Laboratory, Holka, the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), and the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform, opposed the legislation and called on lawmakers to preserve the independence of anti-corruption bodies.

The law was supported by 263 Members of Parliament. NABU Director Semen Kryvonos publicly urged President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to veto the bill. Nevertheless, the President signed it on the day of its adoption, despite public protests in several Ukrainian cities.

Within a week, following domestic protests and pressure from international partners, Parliament adopted a new presidential bill that restored the institutional independence of NABU and SAPO, effectively reversing the key consequences of Law No. 12414.

Member of Parliament Hryhorii Mamka, elected from the now-banned Opposition Platform – For Life (OPZZh), introduced a draft law establishing administrative liability for publicly identifying lawyers with their clients.

The initiative followed proposals advanced by the National Bar Association of Ukraine, headed since 2012 by Lidiia Izovitova, who has been publicly associated with Viktor Medvedchuk.

According to critics of the bill, journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens could face fines for publicly mentioning that a particular lawyer represented a specific client. Examples cited during parliamentary debate included references to lawyers who had represented individuals accused or convicted of serious crimes, including high-profile corruption and treason cases.

The draft law was opposed by several civil society organizations, including DEJURE Foundation, Holka, the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), and the CHESNO Movement. They argued that the initiative contained elements of censorship and could create obstacles for investigative journalism and public oversight.

Following the adoption of the bill in the second reading, MP Serhii Vlasenko proposed that Parliament urgently request the Speaker to sign the law without delay. The proposal was supported by a majority of MPs.

In response, MP Anastasiia Radina, Chair of the Parliamentary Anti-Corruption Committee, announced preparations for a blocking resolution to prevent the law from being signed. She warned that journalists could be fined between UAH 1,700 and UAH 3,400 for publicly identifying a lawyer’s client, with significantly higher penalties for repeated violations. Proceedings could be initiated following complaints submitted by lawyers themselves.

MP Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Freedom of Speech, described the initiative as an attack on freedom of expression and the public’s right to information.

Draft Law No. 12089 became widely known in Ukrainian media as the “Mazepa Law” due to the public support and lobbying efforts of businessman Ihor Mazepa, who advocated for its adoption.

The law significantly limits the ability of the state and local governments to recover forests, coastal lands, and other public property that had previously been transferred into private ownership through unlawful or questionable decisions. If ten years have passed since such a transfer, public authorities effectively lose the ability to reclaim the asset through the courts.

For cases where the ten-year period has not yet expired, the law introduces an additional requirement: before filing a lawsuit to recover property, the state or municipality must deposit the market value of the disputed asset with the court. Critics argue that this creates substantial financial barriers to protecting public property and may discourage legal action.

Dozens of civil society organizations, including the Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, Environment-People-Law, Ecosphere, ANTS, the CHESNO Movement, and Price of the State, called on President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to veto the bill. A petition demanding a veto collected more than 25,000 signatures in less than two weeks. Supporters of the law launched a counter-petition, but it failed to gain comparable support.

Despite the public campaign, President Zelenskyy signed the law. Critics pointed to the case of Kyiv’s Protasiv Yar, a green area defended by civic activist and military intelligence officer Roman Ratushnyi, as one of the first disputes potentially affected by the new legal framework.

Concerns about the legislation were later echoed at the European level. In its resolution on Ukraine, the European Parliament highlighted risks associated with the law, warning that it could significantly reduce the state’s ability to recover unlawfully transferred public assets and may effectively legitimize past land grabs involving forests, coastal territories, and other publicly owned property.

Draft Law No. 9549 was initially designed to accelerate the restoration and expansion of Ukraine’s digital infrastructure during wartime. However, before the second reading, additional provisions were inserted into the bill that were unrelated to its original purpose.

The most controversial amendment introduced a special procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land and property in the Uzhhorod district of Zakarpattia region. Critics warned that the provisions created risks for both environmental damage and misuse of public funds. In particular, concerns were raised that authorities could purchase selected properties using state funds at prices significantly above market value.

Legal experts and civil society organizations argued that the amendments violated several provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine. As a result, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy vetoed the bill and returned it to Parliament with objections.

When reconsidering the legislation, Parliament addressed only part of the President’s concerns. Additional provisions were also introduced that extended until 2028 the possibility for local authorities to approve detailed territorial plans that diverge from existing municipal master plans. Critics argued that such mechanisms could facilitate non-transparent development practices and weaken urban planning safeguards.

Parliament ultimately failed to secure enough votes to override the presidential veto. Nevertheless, Speaker of Parliament Ruslan Stefanchuk signed the bill and forwarded it to the President, triggering public criticism and legal concerns regarding the legislative procedure.

The case became one of the most controversial examples of unrelated amendments being added to legislation during the parliamentary process, raising concerns about property rights, environmental protection, urban planning, and compliance with constitutional procedures.

Draft laws No. 13137 and 13137-1 have been registered in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, proposing a radical overhaul of the rules governing disciplinary liability of judges.

Under the current framework, a key ground for dismissal is “conduct that disgraces the status of a judge or undermines the authority of justice.” The draft laws effectively abolish this basis. Instead, they retain only narrowly defined cases (for example, property violations exceeding UAH 1.5 million or drunk driving confirmed by a sobriety test), which can be easily circumvented: a judge may unlawfully acquire assets just below the threshold or refuse to undergo testing for intoxication to avoid disciplinary liability.

The draft legislation also restricts the filing of complaints against judges in cases deemed “abusive” and introduces disproportionate fines for submitting new complaints. Complaints concerning judges who have not yet been finally dismissed by the High Council of Justice (e.g., Yevhenii Ablov, Kostiantyn Pashchenko from the OASC) or those for whom no case has yet been opened (more than 30 OASC judges) are likely to be returned to complainants due to the absence of an effective response mechanism within the High Council of Justice regarding such violations. Additionally, the draft removes failure to submit, late submission, or knowingly false information in annual asset declarations from the list of disciplinary offenses, effectively allowing judges to avoid declaring assets or income without consequence. For false information in integrity or family-related declarations, the maximum sanction is a reprimand rather than dismissal, as is currently the case.

As a result, judges who have repeatedly been implicated in controversial or discrediting cases—including corruption scandals, collaborators, judges holding dual citizenship, or those involved in facilitating draft evasion—would be able to remain in office until such facts are established in a court ruling, a process that may take 5–10 years or may never be concluded.

According to experts, the draft law effectively dismantles the institution of disciplinary accountability for judges and deprives society of one of the few available tools for ensuring judicial integrity. It is argued that this directly contradicts Ukraine’s international obligations, obstructs anti-corruption reforms, and undermines trust in the judiciary.

On July 25, 2025, the High Council of Justice held consultations with experts from the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe regarding the proposed reforms to judicial disciplinary liability contained in draft laws 13137 and 13137-1. In addition, the Plenum of the Supreme Court approved an opinion on these draft laws, highlighting significant shortcomings and the need for revision. The Center for Policy and Legal Reform also issued its position:

“In the proposed version, it not only fails to address the problem of ensuring the unity of disciplinary practice, which is a strategic objective of Ukraine within the framework of European integration, but also grants excessively broad discretion to disciplinary bodies of the High Council of Justice in qualifying judicial misconduct and its consequences, creates unjustified corruption risks, contains provisions that are not fully aligned with anti-corruption legislation, and includes internal contradictions.”