Landmark Decisions

The authors of Draft Law No. 12384 argued that their initiative would improve Ukraine’s investment climate. However, experts from the Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group and the NGO “Teren” warned that several provisions of the bill posed risks that could negatively affect both drinking water quality and public access to water bodies.

The draft law, co-authored by Davyd Arakhamia, Andrii Motovylovets, and Oleksandr Haidu, proposed allowing the fencing of riverside plots of up to 0.1 hectares without adequate safeguards or consideration of local community views. In addition, according to environmental experts, the proposed rules on fish farming in reservoirs, including the use of chemical substances, could create additional risks to drinking water quality.

Earlier, President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy vetoed a similar draft law, No. 8119, citing concerns about its compatibility with the Constitution of Ukraine. The Main Legal Department of the Verkhovna Rada had also highlighted these constitutional concerns.

Environmental organizations called for amendments to the draft law, and their position was supported by government officials. However, members of the Parliamentary Committee on Agrarian and Land Policy did not incorporate these proposals. As a result, the bill failed to secure the support of a parliamentary majority, in part due to the efforts of Members of Parliament Yulia Ovchynnykova (Servant of the People) and Nataliia Pipa (Holos).

On 1 July 2026, the Verkhovna Rada voted to return the draft law for a repeated second reading.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This legislative initiative enabled Ukraine to purchase equipment from Bulgaria for the construction of the Khmelnytskyi Nuclear Power Plant—specifically two nuclear reactors manufactured in Russia (project 11392). Previously, the Russian Federation had sold these reactors to Bulgaria, but Bulgaria later decided not to build a nuclear power plant that would operate on Russian fuel, as it would create dependency on a country under an authoritarian regime.

Ukraine expressed readiness to purchase the equipment for USD 600 million. Public utility tariffs were increased, and the funds were intended to be allocated to Energoatom for this large-scale construction project.

The organization Ecoaction noted that future operation of the nuclear power plant would inevitably require technical involvement from Russia, which would undermine the country’s energy independence.

The decision on purchasing the reactors was prepared in Parliament for a second reading ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration in the United States. It received significant media attention, as the Ukrainian government later approved the purchase of Russian-origin reactors, while critics argued that the funds could instead be directed to the Armed Forces.

The investigative media outlet Nashi Groshi emphasized that Parliament would later need to adopt additional decisions on completing the construction of the Khmelnytskyi NPP units, which experts estimated could take 7–8 years. Opposition MPs warned that such a project could entail significant corruption risks during implementation. The relevant parliamentary committee also noted that the legislative initiative was not compliant with Ukraine’s anti-corruption legislation.

A total of 269 Members of Parliament voted in favor of the law. Votes against were cast by representatives of two factions—European Solidarity and Holos.

It is important to note that the text of the draft law, which passed the first reading, was significantly altered, including its title. The Main Legal Department of the Verkhovna Rada pointed to this procedural violation. Experts also noted that Parliament acted beyond its constitutional powers and granted preferential treatment to certain business entities.

The Law of Ukraine “On the Specifics of Regulating the Activities of Legal Entities of Certain Organizational and Legal Forms During the Transitional Period and Associations of Legal Entities” (No. 4196-IX), adopted on January 9, 2025 and entering into force on August 28, 2025, abolishes the Commercial Code of Ukraine, which previously defined the general principles governing relations between business and the state.

The key initiator of the legislative proposal was the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Ruslan Stefanchuk. The legislative initiative was also supported by dozens of Members of Parliament (draft law No. 6013).

Proponents of the law stated that it aims to expand economic freedoms. However, the law eliminates foundational norms regulating the interaction between the state and business, as well as principles governing the management of economic activity in the public and municipal sectors.

A number of civil society organizations warned that the law poses risks to national security and may lead to a large-scale redistribution of state assets, particularly given that the Verkhovna Rada did not approve a list of property that cannot be privatized.

The law provides for the compulsory reorganization of all enterprises into companies, which in the public sector may result in a form of indirect privatization and increased oligarchic influence in the economy. It also introduces the legal concept of usufruct over public property, which critics argue is non-transparent.

According to critical assessments, this constitutes a direct violation of the Constitution of Ukraine and the principle of the rule of law, as well as a disproportionate interference in entrepreneurial activity and the constitutional principles governing participation of state and local authorities in economic activity, thereby undermining Ukraine’s constitutionally guaranteed economic diversity.

Alternative approaches to modernizing commercial and economic legislation were reportedly disregarded during the adoption of the law. The draft law No. 6013 was opposed by organizations such as “Holka,” “Environment People Law,” “Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group,” and others, which called on President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to veto the bill. The Association of Ukrainian Cities also expressed opposition to the law.