While Ukrainian politics formally remains focused on the war, another major conflict is gradually forming in the Verkhovna Rada — around family, morality, and the role of the state in private life. The discussion of the new Civil Code of Ukraine has already gone far beyond a legal debate and is beginning to turn into a separate direction of political struggle.
At the end of April, the Verkhovna Rada adopted in the first reading draft of the new Civil Code of Ukraine No. 15150, which the authorities call “the largest legal reform in the years of independence.” The document, which had been worked on for several years, is intended to completely overhaul the system of private law, replacing the current Civil Code of 2003.
However, the new code has already sparked not only a legal but also a political conflict. Some lawyers, human rights advocates, and members of parliament speak of an attempt to push through parliament a document that changes the rules of the game in matters of property, media, privacy, and family law without broad public discussion. Others call the criticism exaggerated and explain it as a struggle between various political influence groups.
“This has long ceased to be just a legal reform. In reality, it is about an attempt to shape new rules for the country after the war. Through the Civil Code, the authorities want to lay the foundation for the future economy, reconstruction, redistribution of property, and the role of the state in private life. That is exactly why the document is provoking such a nervous reaction. Some MPs understand that we are voting not simply for a new code, but for a new model of the state. At the same time, very few are prepared to openly confront Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Ruslan Stefanchuk, because this is his personal political project”, - a source within the Servant of the People faction told OstroV.
What the new Civil Code proposes
Officially, the goal of the reform is the “recodification of private law” and the adaptation of Ukrainian legislation to European standards. The document provides for a systemic modernization of civil and family law, the digitalization of legal relations, new mechanisms for property protection, and new rules regarding inheritance, contracts, privacy, and liability.
The authors of the document claim that its main goal is the “de-Sovietization” of Ukrainian private law and the adaptation of legislation to modern European approaches.
One of the key innovations is the effective absorption of the Family Code into the new Civil Code. The authors of the reform propose integrating family law into a single code of private law. It is precisely this section that has caused the greatest public and political controversy.
Critics argue that it is specifically in the area of family law that the document contains the largest number of controversial ideological and legal changes.
Among the most controversial provisions are:
— changes in approaches to defining the family;
— a new interpretation of “good faith” as a principle for regulating private relations;
— revision of the state’s role in matters of family life;
— changes in the areas of divorce, paternity, and custody;
— expansion of approaches to personal autonomy in private relations.
The new code also significantly changes the approach to property rights and contractual relations. It proposes substantially expanding freedom of contract, introducing new forms of property rights, and modernizing rules of civil liability.
A separate section is devoted to the digital sphere. The document introduces for the first time the concepts of digital things, digital assets, and electronic transactions. The code also regulates the inheritance of digital property, personal accounts, and other virtual assets, which previously were not explicitly defined in Ukrainian legislation.
One of the most controversial norms has become the concept of “good faith”. In the new code, it is effectively proposed as one of the principles for regulating private relations.
“Good faith as a normative ‘filter’ of private autonomy — rights may be exercised and contracts structured broadly, but within limits compatible with good customs/ethical standards of private turnover. This provides flexibility to the system without losing value boundaries and allows for a correct response to ‘creative’ constructions of abuse of rights without resorting to excessive imperativeness”, - the explanatory note to the draft law states.
Critics of the document point out that the concept itself is very vague and has no clear legal boundaries. According to some lawyers and human rights defenders, this creates a risk of arbitrary interpretation by courts or state authorities.
“We have already counted 45 mentions of ‘good faith’ in the Code, and this is a worrying signal, because this concept has no clear definition, which means it can and will be used for manipulation. It would seem that the draft Civil Code could not turn out worse than what we have learned about it in recent days. But no, it can”, - said MP Inna Sovsun.
No less sharp disputes have arisen around the provisions on the “family union”. Under current legislation, there is a norm that allows people who live together, share a household, and have mutual rights and obligations even without official marriage to be recognized as a family. It is precisely thanks to this norm that same-sex couples in certain cases were able to seek a degree of legal protection through courts — for example, in matters of inheritance, property, or social rights.
In the new Civil Code, the approach becomes significantly stricter. Critics of the document argue that the authors effectively sees the model of the family exclusively as a union between a man and a woman, and the possibility of judicial recognition of same-sex partnerships is significantly limited or disappears altogether. That is why human rights organizations and the LGBTQ community have stated that the new code may narrow the already existing case law on the protection of same-sex couples’ rights.
A separate scandal arose over provisions that may affect media operations and freedom of speech. The strongest criticism was directed at norms concerning the protection of private life and the so-called “right of reply”. Media professionals and human rights defenders fear that, in their current form, these provisions may create additional mechanisms of pressure on journalists. In particular, critics point out that some norms allow demands for refutation or response even in cases where information has not been declared false by a court. According to media lawyers, this could significantly complicate the work of investigative journalism and critical reporting.
Special attention was drawn to the emergence of new rights that previously did not exist in legislation. For example, the so-called “right to informational peace”. It provides that a person has the right not to answer calls, messages, or emails outside working hours. In practice, this is the Ukrainian equivalent of the “right to disconnect”, which already exists in some EU countries.
Another fundamental change concerns the very role of the state in private law. The new code emphasizes personal autonomy, the freedom of private relations, and minimal state interference. That is why some lawyers and MPs say that the document effectively changes Ukraine’s basic legal model.
At the same time, opponents of the reform point out that many provisions of the code are formulated very broadly and can be interpreted in different ways. This especially concerns the concepts of “good faith”, moral principles, and certain categories of private law. Critics fear that such ambiguity will create wide room for judicial manipulation and political influence.
Despite this, the authorities insist that without a new Civil Code Ukraine will not be able to transition to a modern European legal system or effectively launch a post-war economy.
However, it is already clear that the document has become not only a legal reform but also a subject of major political struggle.
Voting
The vote on the new Civil Code became indicative not only because of the document itself, but also because of the political configuration that has formed around it in the Verkhovna Rada.
Formally, the mono-majority still has a sufficient number of deputies, however even it was unable to independently secure a full result: only 179 representatives of “Servant of the People” voted “for”. At the same time, the large number of those who did not vote or were absent was notable — in total almost fifty MPs of the faction. This may indicate an ambiguous attitude toward the document even within the mono-majority itself.
Sources in the parliament speaking to OstroV point out that part of the “Servant of the People” MPs deliberately tried to distance themselves from the vote due to the toxicity of certain norms of the code and the wave of criticism from human rights defenders, the media, and civil society.
The “European Solidarity” party supported the document rather cautiously. Only three MPs of the faction voted “for”, while seven abstained and another six did not vote at all. The “Batkivshchyna” party gave 12 “for” votes, although there was also no full unity within the faction. Parliament notes that part of the deputies supported the document precisely because of its socially conservative norms in the field of family law.
The parliamentary groups “Dovira”, “Restoration of Ukraine”, and “For the Future” almost synchronously supported the code. This once again demonstrated that the Office of the President maintains a situational coalition around major systemic bills.
Particular attention is drawn to the vote of the parliamentary group “Platform for Life and Peace”, formed mainly from former members of the opposition. Despite the controversy surrounding the document, the group gave 16 votes “for”. In political circles, this is already being called another example of how part of the former pro-russian camp continues to situationally support key government initiatives.
“There was a classic deal. When the authorities need votes for a difficult or toxic bill, groups of former opposition regularly step in”, - a source in the Verkhovna Rada told OstroV.
The “Voice” faction took the most critical stance toward the document. It is here that the only two “against” votes among parliamentary factions were recorded.
For the current parliament, where the authorities regularly face problems mobilizing votes even for government bills, the final 254 “for” votes were rather an exception to the rule. Especially considering that this is one of the most controversial documents in recent years, which has already triggered a wave of criticism from human rights defenders, media professionals, and part of the legal community.
Sources in the Verkhovna Rada explain this result primarily by the personal factor of the Speaker of Parliament Ruslan Stefanchuk, who is called the main ideologue and political author of the new Civil Code.
“Stefanchuk personally asked to support the document and essentially framed it as a matter of principle for himself. Many voted not so much for the code itself, but out of reluctance to spoil relations with him.
Ruslan Stefanchuk is currently trying to go down in history not only as a wartime speaker, but as the person who carried out the largest legal reform in decades. For him, this code is a personal political project and a matter of reputation. That is precisely why he put strong pressure on MPs ahead of the vote. But the problem is that, due to political haste, the document turned out to be very raw and conflict-prone. Everyone understands this, but so far no one wants to enter into a direct conflict with the leadership of parliament and the Office of the President”, - a source of OstroV in the leadership of one of the parliamentary groups said.
According to sources of the publication, this is what explains the unusually low number of “against” votes. A significant number of deputies who had objections to the document chose a strategy of “not voting” or were simply absent during its consideration.
“There was an understanding that the document was toxic, especially after the scandals around ‘good faith’, family law, and risks for the media. But openly bringing down Stefanchuk’s bill, no one wanted to either”, - another source of OstroV notes.
According to OstroV sources, several influence groups have formed inside the Verkhovna Rada around the code.
Part of the mono-majority deputies support the document as a “historic reform”. At the same time, another part of the “Servant of the People” faction unofficially admits that the text contains “rough” and politically risky provisions.
“In parliament, many have complaints about the document. Especially about the norms on ‘good faith’, judicial interpretations, privacy, and family law. But the problem is that no one wanted to take political responsibility for the failure of the code in the first reading. There was a clear instruction: give votes now, and then ‘fight’ through amendments before the second reading. That is why we saw so many ‘for’ votes and so few ‘against’. Some MPs simply decided to wait out the public scandal”, - a source of OstroV in the relevant committee of the Verkhovna Rada notes.
For and against
Supporters of the document claim that the criticism is often politicized and manipulative. The relevant committee emphasizes that the current Civil Code is morally outdated and no longer corresponds either to the modern economy or to Ukraine’s European integration course.
One of the majority deputies told OstroV that opponents of the reform are “scaring society”.
“Part of the criticism is an absolutely political campaign. Any major code always causes resistance because it changes the balance of interests. But without updating civil law, Ukraine will not be able to move toward a European legal system”, - the source told the publication.
Critics believe that under the guise of modernization, the authorities may introduce norms that strengthen control over society and create new risks in the area of property.
The scandal around the new Civil Code went far beyond parliament after more than 80 human rights, media, and civil society organizations publicly appealed to the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Ruslan Stefanchuk, calling for a revision of several provisions of the document. The authors of the appeal stated that certain norms of the code may contradict European standards in the areas of human rights, freedom of speech, and non-discrimination.
In fact, critics of the document fear that the new mechanisms could be used to pressure journalists, make investigative media work more difficult, and restrict access to publicly important information. Civil society organizations also separately warned about risks to the system of open data and anti-corruption investigations.
The appeal also emphasizes that some provisions of the code contain risks of narrowing already existing rights and freedoms of citizens and require further alignment with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and Ukraine’s European integration commitments.
After the wave of criticism, Ruslan Stefanchuk was forced to publicly respond to the accusations. The Speaker of Parliament stated that the “right to be forgotten” does not concern freedom of speech and will not allow public figures to avoid journalistic investigations. According to him, this norm allegedly fully corresponds to European practice and EU standards on personal data protection.
However, parliament acknowledges: it was precisely the issue of freedom of speech that became one of the main reasons why the new Civil Code suddenly transformed from a narrow professional legal reform into a major political conflict.
What’s next
Ahead lies the second reading, and it may become a flashpoint of major political conflict. According to OstroV, sources in the Verkhovna Rada, hundreds of amendments are already being prepared for the document. Some MPs will insist on a complete rewriting of certain sections.
"Before the second reading, the atmosphere around this code will already be completely different. The first reading was more of a political advance to Stefanchuk and an attempt to show that the parliament supposedly supports a "big reform". But now a real war over specific provisions will begin. There will be hundreds, and possibly thousands, of amendments.
I think the authorities will try to go down the path of partial concessions. The most toxic provisions may be rewritten or softened – primarily regarding "good faith", the right of reply, certain provisions of family law, and judicial powers. But the concept of the code itself will not be changed, because for Stefanchuk this is already a matter of personal political reputation", - says the interlocutor of OstroV in the Verkhovna Rada.
According to the MP from the mono-majority, inside parliament many are waiting for the moment when they can begin to distance themselves from the document.
"Because right now everyone voted "for reform", but when specific amendments regarding freedom of speech, privacy, or family law begin – MPs will start thinking about their own political ratings and public reaction. Therefore, the second reading may become significantly more contentious than the first. And I do not rule out that at some point the authorities will either have to seriously rewrite the code or even put the process on pause in order not to turn legal reform into a full-fledged political crisis", - he noted.
The new Civil Code has already ceased to be purely a legal reform. The document, which the authorities present as modernization of legislation and a step toward European standards, has in fact become part of a large political discussion about what Ukraine will be after the war – with new rules of private life, the role of the state, the powers of courts, and the boundaries of freedom of speech. Ahead is the second reading, which, it seems, will no longer be a technical procedure, but a full-scale political battle around the most controversial provisions of the code.
By Andrii Andrieiev, journalist for OstroV