Ukraine’s proposed new Civil Code sparks protests and sharp criticism

A sweeping overhaul of Ukraine’s Civil Code, passed in its first reading by parliament on 28 April, has triggered protests in several cities and drawn strong criticism from human rights groups, feminists, LGBTQ+ activists, and environmental organisations.

The 800-plus-page draft, developed over nearly seven years under the leadership of Parliament Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk, aims to modernise the 2003 Civil Code, which still contains outdated references such as telex as a means of communication. Proponents describe it as a step toward European standards, while critics argue it risks rolling back rights and creating legal loopholes.

Why a completely new code?

The current Civil Code regulates personal, property, and family matters – from naming a child to inheritance and marriage. The new version expands from six to nine books, incorporating family law, private international law, and a new section on the publicity of civil rights. Developers, including working group secretary Mykhailo Khomenko and scientific coordinator Nataliia Kuznietsova, argue that a full rewrite was necessary due to major structural changes and EU harmonisation efforts, adapted to Ukraine’s context. Opponents, such as lawyer Marta Bereza from the DEJURE Foundation, believe targeted amendments to the existing code would have sufficed for issues like digital rights, reproductive technologies, and same-sex partnerships.

Controversial provisions in earlier drafts – such as allowing 14-year-old girls to marry in cases of pregnancy – were removed after public backlash. However, five main concerns remain.

Vague “good morals”standard

The draft introduces the term “dobrozvychnist” (good morals or decency) nearly 45 times across areas including property, family law, and donor rights. Critics like MP Inna Sovsun warn it is too abstract, potentially allowing judges to force couples into reconciliation or make subjective rulings. Developers note that similar evaluative concepts exist in the current Family Code (“moral foundations of society”) and in the civil codes of Germany, France, and the Netherlands. They argue courts need flexibility to consider specific circumstances, though they acknowledge risks if the judiciary lacks independence. Stefanchuk has defended the term by comparing it to anti-corruption principles like integrity.

Potential risks to women’s rights

Women’s rights groups, including “March of Women,” raised alarms over provisions that could complicate divorce, limit alimony claims, and allow courts to judge “immoral behaviour.” Key issues include mandatory reconciliation periods (especially for parents of minor children), shortened statutes of limitations for alimony recovery (from 10 years to 1–3 years), and references to “immoral acts” in surname changes after divorce. Authors say the rules are gender-neutral and aim to protect children and the financially weaker spouse. Exceptions exist for domestic violence (physical, psychological, or economic). Some norms mirror the current code, and developers have indicated openness to refinements before the second reading.

Limited recognition for LGBTQ+ rights

The draft explicitly defines marriage and family unions as between a man and a woman, aligning with Article 51 of Ukraine’s Constitution. Critics argue this closes off progress on registered civil partnerships, which could have offered some legal protections for same-sex couples without amending the Constitution (prohibited during martial law). Activists fear it could hinder Ukraine’s EU integration commitments on non-discrimination. Developers cite constitutional constraints and note that broader societal support would be needed for future changes. They have

Threats to state and environmental property

The new “Publicity of Civil Rights” book emphasises official registries. Environmental groups like Greenpeace Ukraine and activists such as Iryna Fedoriv warn this could enable “legalised theft” of unregistered state assets — forests, protected lands, archaeological sites, and water bodies — many of which are not yet properly mapped in cadastres. A good-faith purchaser could potentially claim ownership if the state has not registered the property. Developers counter that ownership protections remain strong regardless of registration and suggest delaying implementation of this section until registries are updated.

“Right to be forgotten” and media concerns

The draft includes a “right to be forgotten” for information that has “lost public interest,” raising fears that corrupt officials or public figures could demand removal of investigative journalism. Developers reference EU practices (such as GDPR) and note safeguards for freedom of expression, particularly regarding public figures. They say problematic earlier provisions affecting journalists were removed after consultations.

Next steps and broader context

The bill still requires a second reading and presidential signature. Stefanchuk and the working group have acknowledged valid concerns and pledged improvements. Over 80 NGOs have submitted proposals. Protests in Kyiv, Kharkiv, and other cities reflect rare wartime civic mobilisation on domestic legislative issues. The outcome could influence Ukraine’s EU accession path, as the draft has drawn warnings from human rights organisations about compatibility with European standards.

The original article in Ukrainian by EUalive’s partner Suspilne can be found here.

Caption: Protest action against the new edition of the Civil Code in Kharkiv on 6 May 2026. [Suspilne/Viktoria Yakymenko]