Svitlana Dorosh, BBC News Ukraine
The project of the new Civil Code is stirring up increasing passions. Collective statements from human rights and media organizations are emerging, and protests are being organized on the streets of Kyiv and other cities, demanding not to adopt this document in the form proposed by the authors led by parliament speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk.
This massive draft law, exceeding 800 pages, was passed by the Rada in the first reading at the end of April. It aims to absorb the current Commercial and Family Codes, along with dozens of laws. The authors argue that this is necessary for the “de-Sovietization” of civil law and its alignment with European Union standards.
However, opponents believe that the draft contains many provisions whose adoption is inadmissible and dangerous. As street protest activist Khrystyna Morozova stated, “it’s like in Stephen King’s books, the further you read, the scarier it becomes.”
So what has frightened many human rights activists and lawyers? We have collected the articles that critics consider the most controversial in the new Civil Code.
“Why break what works”
However, it’s not only the articles that politicians and lawyers argue about. The history of the new Civil Code has been controversial from the start. The authors of the document—the parliament speaker and about 100 deputies—submitted one project for consideration, but then withdrew it and submitted another.
The first draft included a provision allowing marriage at age 14 in special circumstances, which was criticized by child protection experts. Experts also noted that the property articles in this document were copied from the Russian Civil Code. The Ministry of Justice submitted a substantial critical review of that document.
After this, the project was withdrawn, and an updated document appeared in the Rada, which no longer included articles about 14-year-olds or other controversial elements. The Ministry of Justice did not have time to review this document. There was also no public discussion of the project. This is the document that deputies quickly voted on in the first reading.
As lawyer and former parliament member Viktoriya Ptashnyk states, many members of the Verkhovna Rada did not understand at all what they supported. She refers to personal conversations with several dozen members of parliament. “They now say: give us amendments, we will fix the situation by the second reading,” she reported during the discussion of the Civil Code project.
At the same time, more and more lawyers are asking—why create such a massive document instead of improving the codes that came into effect in the early 2000s and are still in force?
“Are we doing this because someone wrote a dissertation and wants to impose their worldview on others?” states Oleg Podtsierkovnyi, a professor at the Odessa Law Academy and specialist in commercial law. Incidentally, he was included in the list of authors of the new Code, but he says he does not consider himself one because he criticized the content of this document.
The person Professor Podtserkovnyi referred to when mentioning the dissertation was not specified. However, it is known that Ruslan Stefanchuk holds a Doctor of Law degree in civil law and is the author of hundreds of articles on recodification, meaning significant changes and updates to civil law legislation.
The speaker himself has repeatedly asserted that a new Civil Code is necessary to finally break away from the Soviet past still reflected in the Codes and align it with the European Union’s legislation. He stated that the best lawyers in Ukraine worked on the Code project for seven years.
Ruslan Stefanchuk even started maintaining special blogs on social media, where he periodically debunks what he calls “myths and manipulations” by opponents around the Code project.
“Dobrozvychaynis,” and “usufruct”
Before revealing the content of specific articles that most outrage practicing lawyers and academics, and compel activists to write petitions and protest, it’s worth mentioning an innovation that will be noticeable to everyone who opens the Civil Code project. It’s about the new terminology being introduced into the Code, which will be used not only by lawyers but also by ordinary Ukrainians whose lives this document literally regulates from birth.
As speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk often explained, the authors aimed to cleanse the Code of Soviet terms and concepts and replace them with authentically Ukrainian ones. Additionally, they sought to synchronize them with the terminology of Roman private law, which underpins the legislation of most EU countries.
However, lawyers sometimes admit that even their knowledge is not always sufficient to understand them.
The main ideologist behind implementing new legal terminology into the Civil Code is former parliamentary deputy and ex-judge of the Constitutional Court Serhii Holovaty, Ruslan Stefanchuk reported. Holovaty is currently the head of the Center for Legal Terminology of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine. He believes that during Soviet times, the Ukrainian legal language was drained, making it essential to restore terms that were lost or Russified.
Here are just some of these concepts.
“Dobrozvychaynis.” In the code project, it appears dozens of times and serves as a substitute for the construction “moral principles.” It pertains to the honest, ethical, moral behavior of those participating in all civil matters.
“With this distinctly Ukrainian word, chosen by a professional philological group, we simply replace the outdated post-Soviet cliché ‘moral principles of society,’ which historically derives from the Soviet formulation of ‘moral principles of the builder of communism,'” emphasizes Ruslan Stefanchuk.
However, opponents argue that this concept is too vague and can be interpreted differently in various situations. Legal organizations believe that “non-dobrozvychaynis,” “immoral” actions and agreements can be recognized, with conclusions drawn by judges based on their internal convictions.
“Posidannya” – instead of the word borrowed from Russian “volodynnia” (possession).
“Osidok” – instead of the phrase “mistse prozhyvannya” (place of residence).
“Digital thing” – a new term replacing “virtual property.” This includes cryptocurrency, social media accounts, domain names, etc.
Regarding Latin terms, some are in the current Civil Code, but the draft proposes new ones. These are “mediation” (act of reconciliation), “superficies” and “emphyteusis” (land rights), “delict” (civil offense), “vindication” (recovery of property), “usufruct” (right to use someone else’s property and earn income from it), “astreinte” (fine imposed by the court on a debtor for each day of delay in fulfilling a decision).
“I speak from the perspective of notarial practice. Legislators should write simply about complex issues. Instead, they play with difficult-to-understand terminology. People come to us without a basic legal background, those who have not studied Roman law. This Code should be for such people because it concerns their property,” said Dmitry Korolyuk, a member of the Notarial Chamber of Ukraine.
Right to be forgotten: protection of personal data or loophole for corrupt individuals
The emergence of this right in the draft Civil Code has become one of the most controversial innovations of the reform. Leaders of over 80 public organizations, investigative journalists, and many politicians are discussing it.
The “right to be forgotten” is provided in European data protection legislation, but critics say it could lead to serious problems in the Ukrainian context, with some even calling it a “right to oblivion.”
The authors propose granting individuals the right to demand the removal and destruction of information about them from public sources and search engines under certain conditions: when this information “has lost public interest” or “was collected illegally.” Anti-corruption activists believe such language undermines all their efforts.
Ruslan Stefanchuk disputes this: the article has safeguards.
The “right to be forgotten” does not apply if the information is necessary for the exercise of freedom of speech and journalism work, relates to public figures in connection with their official duties, or constitutes archival, historical, or scientific value,” he writes on Facebook. The speaker assures that this provision “is introduced solely to protect ordinary citizens.”
However, despite these assurances, critics say it is a loophole for figures in corruption scandals who are not always public figures and cite the “Mindich-gate” case, where the main suspect Timur Mindich was not a public or official person.
Consent for filming at public events
Another article concerning media and human rights organizations, which also relates to anti-corruption investigations, is about protecting an individual’s interests during photo, film, TV, and video recording.
The article is currently in force and prohibits filming a person without their prior consent. However, it allows it if they are at a public event.
However, the authors of the code want to strengthen these requirements: consent will also be required if a person is at public events.
This article is also to be updated — it will now include smartphones, live streaming, rules for publishing and reposting videos or photos on social networks, and the right to demand immediate removal of a video.
Hidden filming will be strictly prohibited if a person considers the location private. This provision is of significant concern to media organizations, which demand the right for hidden filming in cases of crime or public interest.
Right of Priority in the State Register of Property Rights
Lawyers believe there are articles in the code that create conditions for raiding and property expropriation.
It is stipulated that if a person openly and continuously uses someone else’s real estate for 10 years, or movable property for 5 years, they automatically acquire ownership of that property.
Human rights organizations, including the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union and the Human Rights Center ZMINA, point out that this provision threatens millions of Ukrainians who have gone abroad due to the war.
Another article pertains to the State Register of Property Rights: if several people claim the same object, priority will be given to the person who first entered data into the registry. Lawyers say this is particularly dangerous for those who have only paper documents for a house, apartment, or land plot.
“That is, whoever first enters themselves in the register as the owner of the property has priority over everyone else. Everyone is aware of how often our registers ‘crash’. My personal experience — I have had to enter my land plots into the register repeatedly because they vanished. During this time, someone could become their owner,” says lawyer Tetiana Ostrikova-Chmeruk.
There is yet another area where the proposed provision could be applied.
Since a significant portion of forests, reserves, coastal strips, rivers, historical and cultural sites do not have clearly defined boundaries in the State Register of Property Rights or the Land Cadastre, they could also end up with an owner who is first to enter the data in the register, using the services of “black notaries.”
“Strangers”? Civil Marriage and Property
The current Family Code stipulates that a man and woman living in a civil marriage, meaning not registered at the civil registry office, have the right to claim the division of all property after separation.
In the new Code, the authors propose that all property purchased by a man or woman in a factual union will be considered private personal property of the one whose name it is registered under. So, if a couple lived together in an apartment, it will not be considered joint property and will belong after separation to the one who is the official owner.
According to women’s rights advocates, this innovation primarily threatens women’s interests, who are often financially dependent on the man.
However, the couple can resolve this issue by signing a contract specifying how the property will be divided if their union dissolves.
Court is Obliged to Facilitate Reconciliation of Spouses
Human rights advocates draw attention to another article of the draft code regarding divorce. It states that the court is obligated to take measures for the reconciliation of the husband and wife and may set a period of up to six months for this purpose.
At the same time, the ideologist of the new code, Ruslan Stefanchuk, calls this manipulation.
“The reconciliation mechanism (up to 6 months) already exists in the current Family Code. Courts apply it daily. We are not returning to the past but making the process safer,” he assures.
The current Family Code indeed contains such a provision, but with a significant difference. It mentions the court’s right, while the new version includes the obligation to facilitate reconciliation. This is what caused the most outrage.
However, this article also has exceptions: the reconciliation period will not exceed one month if the couple has young children.
If there are facts of domestic violence in the family, or if the husband and wife have not lived together for more than 6 months, the court may refrain from reconciliation measures altogether.
Nonetheless, human rights defenders point out that proving facts of violence to cancel reconciliation can be difficult and dangerous for the victim, and that the state should not dictate to adults how much time they need to think. This is particularly noted by the Women’s Lawyers Association “JurFem”.
The Right to Cancel Alimony
One of the articles provides that the alimony payer, often the father of the children, can seek to cancel alimony through the court. This can happen when he proves that the income of the mother, who lives with the child, exceeds his own income and covers the expenses of the child’s maintenance.
If the court decides that the mother’s money is sufficient to fully meet the child’s needs, the father can be officially released from alimony.
Lawyers emphasize that alimony is the child’s money, not the mother’s, and both parents are obliged to support the child equally, regardless of their finances. The proposed mechanism creates loopholes for abuse, as the man might work illegally or with minimal official income.
Additionally, according to the new draft Code, the alimony payer will have the right to demand detailed reports and receipts confirming that the money was spent on the child. If these are not available, it may also serve as grounds for revising the payments.
The Husband’s Surname as a Reward That Can Be Taken Away
The draft Code grants the husband the right to forcibly reclaim his surname from the wife through court if he proves her unworthy behavior after the divorce—adultery or “immoral acts.” Again, “moral decency” comes into play, about which there are many questions among experts, as there are no clear criteria for “immorality” in the legislation.
At the same time, human rights defenders say if a woman has common children and she is forced to change her surname, it will create problems in the future as the mother and children will have different surnames.
Medical Indications for Artificial Insemination
Former MP and lawyer Viktoria Ptashnyk draws attention to another provision of the draft code concerning the reproductive rights of Ukrainians.
The authors propose allowing artificial insemination only when there are medical indications for it, confirmed by doctors, i.e., infertility.
“Frankly speaking, when deputies with their rules intrude into such a sensitive area, there are few tolerant words,” she writes on Facebook.
These rules would mean that couples cannot use artificial insemination to check genetic risks.
Victoria Ptashnyk says that women often seek “in vitro fertilization” to check and be sure that the embryo is healthy.
“Now many couples, especially after the age of 40, use this opportunity to avoid the difficult choice of whether to give birth or terminate the pregnancy for medical reasons, to prevent miscarriages at later stages,” she says.
LGBT and Transgender Rights
The project introduces the concept of a “de facto family union” for the first time. This is essentially a family. However, the corresponding norm provides, as in the current Family Code, that such a union is possible only as a union between a man and a woman.
According to representatives of the ZMINA Human Rights Center, this legally “cements” the restriction and directly forbids courts from ever interpreting the concept of family more broadly, as the union of same-sex couples.
The code’s norms also provide for the automatic invalidation of a marriage if one of the partners changes gender.
LGBT communities and lawyers have already reacted to such innovations. They remind that Ukraine has committed to the EU to create a legal framework for the protection of same-sex couples’ rights.
Meanwhile, Ruslan Stefanchuk assures that everything remains as it is now in the project, as the document’s authors agreed that such a controversial issue will be discussed during the second reading.
Renewal or Future Chaos
A petition on the president’s website demanding intervention in the situation due to criticism of the code gathered 29,000 votes in one day, more than the required 25,000, says one of the activists protesting against the adoption of the Civil Code, Khrystyna Morozova.
She says that the appeal was addressed specifically to Volodymyr Zelensky, and not to the head of parliament as the ideologist of the new code, because the president has the constitutional right to address parliament deputies as a guarantor of rights and freedoms and EU integration.
“The president cannot remain silent,” says Khrystyna Morozova and warns that protests will continue.
Meanwhile, one of the authors of the Code project, Mykola Knyazhytsky from “European Solidarity,” calls not to get caught up in the hype, because the articles currently being criticized are 0.1% of the entire document.
“The current Civil Code was adopted in 2003, long before the appearance of Facebook and YouTube, online trading, high-speed internet, European integration, and the annexation of Crimea. All these events fundamentally changed our world, but almost did not reflect in the Code. So it is obvious that it needs to be updated,” he emphasized.
“The presence of shortcomings in the bill should lead to their correction, not to the destruction of the entire document,” Mykola Knyazhytsky is convinced.
However, lawyers do not agree with him. In particular, Doctor of Law Oleg Podtserkovny from the Odessa Law Academy sees the adoption of the Code resulting in “complete chaos in legal enforcement for the coming decades.”
On the screen: Participants of the rally in Kyiv, May 17, 2026. Photo: Radio Svoboda
Copyright © 2021 RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
