A development that rarely makes headlines – the rewriting of a country's Civil Code – has become one of the most contested debates for civil society in Ukraine. On 28 April 2026, the Ukrainian Parliament adopted draft law No. 15150 as a basis in the first reading. The draft aims to modernise private law and align it with European standards as part of Ukraine's European Union (EU) accession path – a goal civil society broadly supports. Yet, several provisions could make daily work harder for activists, watchdog organisations and journalists, and some risk conflicting with Ukraine's EU commitments. Because this is only the first reading, there is still time to address the most sensitive clauses before the law is finalised.
The Civil Code is the foundational law of private relations – it governs contracts, property, reputation, and the legal status of organisations. This draft would replace the current code, in force since 2003. Although its authors say the reform reflects more than seven years of work, the specific text adopted was registered on 9 April 2026 as an alternative to an earlier draft (No. 14394) and voted on just weeks later, leaving little time for ministries and experts to assess the final version.
For civil society organisations (CSOs), the key changes:
- treat public associations and charities as one type of "non-entrepreneurial society", despite their being governed by dedicated laws built on freedom of association and non-profit purpose;
- import corporate-style decision-making, requiring a qualified majority to approve "significant transactions";
- allow people to demand correction of "inaccurate" information regardless of fault; and
- make a broad "good morals" test a yardstick for all private relations.
Measured against international standards on freedom of association and expression, these changes raise real concerns for how CSOs, activists and journalists go about their everyday work.
What are the key concerns?
The sharpest concern is the ‘correction-regardless-of-fault' rule. An activist who reshares a post – even without realising it is inaccurate – could face a retraction demand or a lawsuit, producing a "chilling effect" on public-interest advocacy and online debate.
The governance rules bite just as hard: approving a "significant transaction" – one worth 10 per cent or more of an organisation's net assets – would require a three-quarters majority of all members, a threshold that routine operational decisions can cross. In practice, this creates a risk that:
- everyday purchases or contracts stall for large-membership organisations, those near the front line, or those with geographically dispersed members;
- advocacy on contested social or political topics becomes legally uncertain, because the new "good morals" standard lets courts judge actions by subjective assessment rather than clear rules;
- some provisions clash with Ukraine's EU path: around 30 civil society organisations warn that parts of the draft contradict European standards and accession commitments, touching directly on Chapter 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights) of the negotiation framework.
Consider a volunteer group operating near the front line, with members displaced or mobilised. Under the significant-transaction rule, even a routine purchase of vehicles or equipment could require assembling three-quarters of all members to vote – a serious practical obstacle under wartime conditions.
The reputation clauses cut just as close. Ukrainian media lawyers note that the draft keeps a provision giving the subject of a journalistic story a right to reply to mentions of themselves, and to demand corrections even where information was never found to be false in court.
Unprecedented moment of political engagement before second reading
The draft now moves to preparation for the second reading – the decisive stage where clauses can be amended or removed. The scale of engagement is significant: lawmakers have submitted more than 15,000 amendments – a record for the relevant parliamentary committee – and CSOs have filed over 100 pages of proposals, which in practice pushes adoption back by several months. Public concern is also evident: a petition against the draft passed the 25,000-signature threshold within a day, obliging the President to respond.
The Government has acknowledged that the draft still needs refinement before the next vote, and the bill's sponsors have invited civil society and media to submit proposals, pledging that all such input will be reviewed before the second reading. If the second reading delivers clearer definitions, proportionate safeguards for journalists and activists, and explicit exceptions for non-profit organisations, the new Civil Code can meet its modernising goal without narrowing civic space – and the organised, evidence-based response from Ukraine's civil society gives real grounds for that outcome.