The Ukrainian parliament is currently debating the draft of a new Civil Code, a key reform in the field of private law that has sparked extensive public, expert, and legal discussions.
One reason for heightened attention is the rapid pace of consideration. Lawmakers had only a few weeks to study the 800+ page draft, accompanied by over 1,600 comparative tables. While other countries generally take years for such reforms, the project in Ukraine has already passed its first reading in a very short time, despite a large number of official remarks from the Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court judges, and legal experts.
The new Civil Code consolidates family law, international private law, and, after the cancellation of the Commercial Code in 2025, business norms as well. The main innovation is the move to a unified codified system of private law, while labor legislation remains separate, raising concerns among experts.
A separate debate concerns the change in the definition of property rights. The traditional triad of "own, use, dispose" is replaced by the concept of "dominion", which, according to the scientific-expert department of parliament, could complicate case law and affect the protection of property rights.
The Code also introduces the concept of "possession" — factual control over an object without legal grounds. While this supports those who lost documents during the war, it may create risks of raids and loss of property for conscientious owners. Parallel to this, the approach to state registries is changed: rights not registered are not protected. This poses a threat to historical monuments, nature reserves, and state property registered improperly or not at all.
Critics also highlight new provisions on digital rights, data protection of companies, and the ability to demand information removal from search engines. There are concerns these updates could become tools to pressure journalists and anti-corruption activists.
The changes also affect family law: merging the family code with the Civil Code, new rules on divorce, alimony, and the definition of common property. Particularly harsh criticism is given to the absence of clear definitions and criteria for terms, creating space for varied interpretations by courts.
There are positives — legal recognition of electronic transactions, simplified everyday contracts for children, and official recognition of digital assets (including cryptocurrency) as property.
Experts are calling for deeper discussion and a strategic approach: this reform must be balanced and comprehensive to avoid new legal risks for citizens and businesses.
