Ukraine’s EU path: blocked not only by Hungary but also by resistance to anti-corruption reforms

With less than three weeks until key the 26-27 European Council meeting, it is clear that Ukraine will not open EU accession negotiations for the first clusters in the first half of the year, blocked, for now, by Hungary’s veto. However, discussions at the “Eurointegration Kitchen” forum organised by European Hub in Kyiv’s reveal that external obstacles are only part of the problem. They point at internal resistance, particularly to anti-corruption reforms, which poses a significant threat to Ukraine’s EU integration.

The “Eurointegration Kitchen” forum provided a platform for candid dialogue among MPs, government officials, and experts. While Hungary’s veto remains a prominent obstacle, internal issues such as legislative resistance and lack of communication are equally critical.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban opposes Ukraine opening accession talks. The veto stems from domestic politics: with Hungary’s parliamentary elections set for April 2026, Orban is leveraging anti-Ukraine sentiment to rally voters. He portrays Ukraine’s EU membership as a “mortal threat” to Hungary, a narrative central to his campaign amid growing risks of electoral defeat.

Hungary’s veto propels Moldova toward EU membership, leaving Ukraine in limbo

MP Serhii Demchenko (Servant of the People) noted that “resistance to bills in parliament is usually due to the draft being flawed,” while MP Vadym Halaichuk highlighted that poor communication often leaves MPs uninformed about EU-integration legislation. To address this, the government plans to include parliamentary representatives in future negotiation groups to foster better engagement.

However, a deeper issue is eroding momentum: a growing trust deficit between institutions, civil society, and the EU. The EU’s demand for a lobbying law, introduced mid-process, has drawn criticism from Ukrainian experts. They argue that lobbying is inconsistently regulated even within EU member states and could hinder advocacy efforts in Ukraine’s transformative legislative phase. Despite such concerns, the EU has shown flexibility, occasionally making concessions when draft laws lack parliamentary support, particularly in the Fundamentals cluster covering democracy and the rule of law.

To advance negotiations for the EU’s first cluster, Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers has approved three roadmaps – on the rule of law, public administration reform, and democratic institutions. However, the rule of law roadmap, with its 124 strategic outcomes and 529 key actions, has raised concerns about its effectiveness.

Anti-corruption NGOs such as the Anti-Corruption Action Centre and DEJURE Foundation criticise Ukraine’s rule of law roadmap, coordinated by the Ministry of Justice. They argue that despite their large number, the 529 tasks identified are minor and imitate reform, while sidestepping critical issues like judicial politicisation and the lack of international experts in key selections. This focus on quantity over quality risks undermining the transformative changes needed for EU accession. By prioritising bureaucratic compliance, the roadmap fails to address systemic corruption, threatening Ukraine’s path to a just, law-governed state, Mikhaylo Zhernakov and Kateryna Shevchuk representing DEJURE argue.

In their words, these omissions are not abstract, but as the roadmap overlooks critical issues that threaten its credibility. They give as an example the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI), once a symbol of post-Revolution of Dignity justice, now serves as a tool for political pressure – yet it’s absent from the reform agenda, and its self-assessment ignores its lack of independence.

The representatives of DEJURE also say that roadmap also fails to outline any meaningful reform of the Supreme Court, despite the 2023 arrest of its president, Vsevolod Knyazev, for allegedly accepting a $2.7 million bribe. They state that the Court remains a stronghold of entrenched interests, and that without a full integrity review and revamped selection process – including international participation – any ruling from the Court risks further eroding public trust.

Another critical gap is reportedly the vague and untransparent process for appointing and dismissing the Prosecutor General. Since the dismissal of Andriy Kostin in November 2024, Ukraine has operated with only an acting Prosecutor General. This vacuum reveals deeper structural weaknesses and leaves the office vulnerable to political manipulation.

While the EU’s flexibility in its requirements offers Ukraine some leeway, the authors say that there is growing concern that bad actors could exploit this within the system. A government representative acknowledged “increasing attacks on anti-corruption tools and attempts to restrict institutional independence.” MP Demchenko advocates for less demanding reform roadmaps to ease legislative burdens, while others call for stricter requirements to ensure meaningful change.

The government emphasises that the roadmaps reflect a compromise between civil society, the state, and the European Commission. But by prioritising bureaucratic compliance over bold, systemic change, Ukraine risks missing the moment. The 529 tasks may help tick boxes in Brussels, but they don’t address the deeper public demand: a justice system free from political interference and corruption.

The DEJURE authors insist that real progress will depend not on paperwork, but on political courage. In their words, this means depoliticising the justice system, extending the mandate of international experts, reforming the Supreme Court, and ensuring a transparent, independent process for appointing the Prosecutor General. These, they point out, are not just EU requirements – they are prerequisites for building a just, resilient Ukrainian state.

Caption: A session of European Hub dedicated to pre-trial investigation deadlines and closure of criminal proceedings. {Facebook page of European Hub]

Updated: June 14, 2025 - 05:05