Weekly analysis for 09 — 15 December

Ukraine Receives Invitation to Join the OECD Working Group on Bribery

Event

On December 9, Ukraine received an official invitation to join the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) Working Group on Bribery. Membership in the Working Group requires Ukraine to ratify the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (1997).

The OECD is an international organization composed of 38 of the world’s most developed countries. Joining the Working Group is a mandatory step in Ukraine’s overall accession process to the OECD.

Joining the Working Group and ratification of the Convention are also included as a separate measure in Ukraine’s Rule of Law Roadmap and therefore is an important component of the state’s European integration efforts.

CPLR’s assessment

The invitation for Ukraine to join the OECD Working Group is an international acknowledgment that the country has a functioning anti-corruption infrastructure capable of investigating bribery in international business transactions, holding perpetrators accountable, and cooperating with other member states through international legal assistance mechanisms.

Even at the preparatory stage for joining the Working Group, Ukraine was required to amend its national legislation to align with the minimum standards of the 1997 OECD Convention. These changes include the following:

– Law of Ukraine “On amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and other legislative acts to improve mechanisms for holding legal entities accountable for the bribery of foreign public officials” № 4111-IX of December 4, 2024;

– Law of Ukraine “On amendments to the Tax Code of Ukraine and certain laws to implement OECD Council Recommendations on tax measures for combating the bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions” № 4112-IX of December 4, 2024.

These laws introduce mechanisms that pose significant challenges for Ukraine’s legal system, specifically, the autonomous application of criminal law measures to legal entities (regardless of whether an individual is held criminally liable) and the prohibition on recording bribery payments in tax reporting.

Systematic and rigorous assessment of legislation and its implementation, conducted for each member state, ensures the continuous improvement of law enforcement agencies, the prosecutor’s office, and the judiciary, while also enhancing criminal proceedings. Participation in the Working Group further serves as a safeguard against attempts by political authorities to limit the independence and effectiveness of anti-corruption bodies.

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine Has Significantly Revised Its Approach to Liability for Administrative Offenses

Event

On December 11, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine issued Opinion No. 7-р(І)/2025, in which it upheld the constitutionality of Articles 14-3, 122-2, and 132-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. These provisions establish responsibility for violations recorded automatically through photo, film, or video recording.

According to these provisions of the Code, responsibility for road transport safety violations detected in an automated manner is imposed on the owner or lawful user of the vehicle – either an individual or the head of a legal entity to which the vehicle is registered (referred to by the legislature as the “responsible person”).

According to the new position of the Constitutional Court, imposing an administrative penalty on the “responsible person” does not violate the principle of individualization of legal responsibility enshrined in Article 61(2) of the Constitution of Ukraine (paragraph 8.2 of the Opinion), nor does it contradict the presumption of innocence guaranteed by Article 62(1) of the Constitution of Ukraine (paragraph 9 of the Court’s Opinion).

CPLR’s assessment

Road traffic safety constitutes an essential element of ensuring public order within the state. The automated recording of several million traffic violations annually plays a significant preventive role in safeguarding all road users.

In this context, the fundamental shift in the position of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine regarding the constitutionality of the automated system for recording traffic violations should be welcomed.

The legislature’s initial attempt to introduce such a mechanism of administrative liability in Ukraine in 2008 was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in Decision № 23-рп/2010 of December 22, 2010, in the case concerning administrative liability in the area of road traffic safety. The Court based its opinion on findings that the system violated the principle of individualization of legal responsibility, the presumption of innocence, and the principle of legal certainty as an element of the rule of law. Consequently, in 2010 the provisions of Article 14-1 and Part 6 of Article 258 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses were declared unconstitutional.

Similar provisions of Articles 14-3, 122-2, and 132-1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses were upheld as constitutional by Decision № 7-р(І)/2025 of December 11, 2025 and were found not to be consistent with the principles of individualization of legal responsibility and the presumption of innocence.

The Constitutional Court found that the current regulatory framework contains a factual presumption whereby the “responsible person” is, prima facie, deemed to have been operating the vehicle (paragraph 8.2 of the Opinion). 

In paragraph 9 of the Opinion, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine also refers to the concept of “objective responsibility for an administrative offense”, as mentioned in a 2018 Opinion of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Under this concept, the burden of proof rests with the state, which must establish: 

– the fact of a breach of statutory obligations or traffic rules during the use of a vehicle;

– the presence of the constituent elements of an administrative offense in the relevant conduct;

– the existence of sufficient grounds to initiate administrative offense proceedings;

– that measures have been taken to identify the individual who committed the offense.

 “If these conditions are satisfied, the vehicle user’s responsibility arises as a legal consequence, regardless of fault,” concludes the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic.

Case law from the European Court of Human Rights and EU member states where traffic violations are treated as administrative offenses similarly accepts a system for the automated recording of traffic violations.

Activating Ukraine’s European Integration Path: 10 Priority Reforms Identified by the European Commission

 Event

On December 11, 2025, the European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos and Ukraine’s Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Taras Kachka issued a joint statement outlining ten priority reforms in the areas of justice, law enforcement, and anti-corruption, intended to demonstrate “Ukraine’s determination to strengthen its institutions and achieve tangible progress within the Fundamentals of the EU Accession Process Cluster, thereby advancing further along its European integration path”. The priorities include:

• comprehensive amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and related legislation to ensure swift and quality justice;
• ensuring NABU’s effective access to impartial, timely, and quality forensic examinations; 
• revising the procedure for the appointment and dismissal of the Prosecutor General;
• adopting a law to establish a transparent, merit-based system for the selection, appointment, and transfer of prosecutors to managerial and other prosecutorial positions within the Office of the Prosecutor General and regional and district prosecutor’s offices;
• reforming the State Bureau of Investigations;\appointing, without delays, judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and members of the High Council of Justice who have successfully passed international vetting;
• expanding the involvement of international experts in the competition commission for the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ);
• adopting a draft law in on judicial integrity declarations;

• adopting the Anti-Corruption Strategy and the State Anti-Corruption Program by the second quarter of 2026, and ensuring their effective implementation;
• strengthening internal anti-corruption control systems at the highest institutional level.

These priorities were identified immediately after the European Union confirmed its intention to launch technical negotiations with Ukraine, enabling Ukraine’s European integration process to move forward despite the absence of a decision on the official opening of Cluster 1.

CPLR’s expert assessment

As in 2022, when Ukraine was granted EU candidate status, judicial reform has once again been identified as a key priority for Ukraine’s continued European integration. Notably, three of the ten priority reforms directly relate to the judicial reform sector, specifically:

• to “appoint without delays internationally vetted judges to the Constitutional Court and members of the High Council of Justice”. Currently, four positions in the High Council of Justice remain vacant, negatively affecting its institutional capacity. Moreover, the terms of office of 10 HCJ members will expire in early 2027. Any delay in appointing new members could disrupt the functioning of this key judicial governance body and, as a consequence, completely suspend the procedures for the appointment, disciplinary accountability, and dismissal of judges.
• to “extend, in close cooperation with the European Commission as regards the modalities, the involvement of international experts in the selection commission for the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ)”. Continued involvement of international experts in the selection of HQCJ members is essential to ensuring the stable operation of this body based on the principles of independence and integrity. In the first half of 2027, the terms of office of 15 out of 16 Commission members will expire. Given the HQCJ’s mandate (selection of new judges and qualification assessment of sitting judges), the effectiveness of judicial reform, particularly with regards to renewing the judicial ranks, will largely depend on the outcomes of this selection process. It should be noted that the European Commission justifies the continued involvement of international experts by the lack of reform of national bodies that are meant to participate in this process and, in its most recent enlargement report, has called for the launch of these reforms.
• to “adopt the draft law on declarations of integrity of judges clarifying the content of the declarations, expansion of the time period covered, and improvement of the verification procedure; for the Supreme Court, this includes the temporary involvement of internationally nominated independent experts”. The integrity declaration mechanism is one of a tool for ensuring judicial accountability. However, despite being in place since 2016, its effectiveness has never been fully realized, and instances of judges being actually held disciplinarily accountable for false statements in their declarations remain rare. In June 2025, Parliament adopted in first reading the draft law № 13165-2, intended to reform this mechanism; however, it does not align with the European Commission’s recommendations. It is also important to note that improving the mechanism for verifying integrity declarations constitutes one of Ukraine’s commitments under the Ukraine Facility Plan 2024–2027, which was originally scheduled for completion by the second quarter of 2025.

Despite the importance of launching the technical track of negotiations, this format should be regarded as a temporary tool intended to preserve momentum in the EU integration process under political uncertainty. Accession negotiations inherently combine both technical and political components, and it is the opening of formal negotiations within clusters that ensures an adequate level of political engagement by all parties, transparency, and the full implementation of the merit-based approach to progress. This is essential not only for incentivizing the implementation of complex reforms but also for enabling high-quality monitoring of progress by the European Union. Prolonged reliance on technical instruments in place of formal negotiation mechanisms should not serve as a substitute for a full-fledged accession process, as delays in opening clusters may slow progress on both sides and create additional risks for candidate countries, including Ukraine.