Landmark Decisions

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 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.

Ukraine, unlike European countries, does not have an alternative control system for sanitary logging other than environmental impact assessment (EIA). This mechanism is currently the only functioning safeguard, and it is being challenged and potentially weakened.

Corruption schemes with extremely high short-term profitability are rare, yet the absence of environmental impact assessment would allow, on paper, healthy forests to be reclassified as diseased. Under such a scheme, the state would receive revenue as if for firewood, while the timber could be sold at a price many times higher.

The simplest way to construct such a large-scale corruption scheme involving the depletion of state forests is through clear-cut sanitary logging. The financial incentives are significant, and the traces of such activities are easy to conceal: after logging, only stumps remain, making it difficult to determine whether trees were truly diseased.

As a result, forestry enterprises are likely to always include actors willing to profit from such practices. Therefore, an effective mechanism is essential to prevent the felling of healthy trees under the guise of sanitary logging.

For a detailed analysis, see the relevant analytical materials. The draft law was opposed by civil society organizations including Environment People Law, Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, Holka, and others.

Any developer or investor would prefer to change land-use designation without additional complications involving the community or local authorities. The new initiative, despite European practice, allows such changes outside settlement boundaries in cases where there is no urban planning documentation, and without requiring a land management project.

This applies to the construction of industrial and agricultural enterprises. Similar rules for industrial development already exist, but only for enterprises relocated from combat zones, and only for the duration of martial law.

In contrast, the new draft law is not limited to addressing urgent wartime needs. Instead, its provisions would remain in force for five years after the end of martial law.

The civic initiative Holka conducted a detailed analysis of the draft law and identified why existing anti-corruption safeguards did not effectively prevent potential risks.

The draft law was criticized by a number of civil society organizations, including Chesno Movement, DEJURE Foundation, and other NGOs, as well as the Association of Ukrainian Cities, the Architectural Chamber of the National Union of Architects of Ukraine, the National Union of Architects of Ukraine, and the media outlet Dzerkalo Tyzhnia.

The European Parliament and the European Commission also expressed concerns regarding the legislative initiative. The UK-based Chatham House think tank, referencing analytical materials by the civic initiative Holka, noted risks of the emergence of construction cartels due to the provisions of the law.

On the day the draft law No. 5655 was adopted in the second reading, citizens gathered the required number of signatures for a petition addressed to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy calling for a veto of the law. The President did not formally respond to the petition but ultimately did not sign the bill, stating that this was his personal decision.

A more detailed analysis of the risks associated with the draft law is available in the “Research” section.