Landmark Decisions

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.

Draft law No. 10242, submitted by MP Hryhorii Mamka (elected from the banned party OPZZh), strengthens criminal liability for the unauthorized dissemination of confidential information obtained from public registers. These proposed amendments could significantly restrict the work of investigative journalists who expose corruption through investigative reporting. This poses a threat to freedom of speech and Ukraine’s European integration process.

Nearly fifty civil society organizations, media outlets, and journalists called on Members of Parliament not to support this legislative initiative. The statement was published by the Media Movement “Media Movement” on December 17, 2024, and was supported, in particular, by representatives of Detector Media, Zerkalo Nedeli, the civic initiative Holka, Ukrainian Pravda, and other organizations.

The legislative initiative was also criticized by the Chair of the Committee on Freedom of Speech, Yaroslav Yurchyshyn.

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.