Bericht der EU-Kommission zum Stand der Ukraine im Beitrittsprozess

Am 4. November 2025 hat die EU-Kommission ihren jüngsten Fortschrittsbericht zur Ukraine vorgestellt. In Kapitel 23 »Justiz und Grundrechte« bescheinigt der Bericht der Ukraine zwar Fortschritte bei Justizreformen und der Korruptionsbekämpfung. Gleichzeitig weist die EU-Kommission jedoch auf anhaltende strukturelle Probleme wie Personalmangel, politische Einflussnahme und gesetzliche Rückschritte hin. Zudem warnt sie vor weiteren Angriffen auf die Unabhängigkeit des Nationalen Antikorruptionsbüros (NABU) und der Spezialisierten Antikorruptions-Sonderstaatsanwaltschaft (SAPO) sowie vor einer Reformstagnation.

Im Folgenden dokumentieren wir den entsprechenden Ausschnitt des EU-Fortschrittsberichts zu Kapitel 23 »Justiz und Grundrechte«.

***

Chapter 23: Judiciary and fundamental rights

Ukraine has some level of preparation regarding the judiciary, the fight against corruption and respect for fundamental rights and made some progress, with progress seen across all areas.

Functioning of the judiciary

Ukraine has some level of preparation in the functioning of the judiciary. Some progress was made during the reporting period, notably by adopting and starting to implement legislation to establish the Kyiv Specialised District Administrative Court and the Kyiv Specialised Administrative Court of Appeal , through the ongoing selection and appointment of judges and members of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) and the evaluation of the qualifications of sitting judges (vetting), and by setting up the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors (SDI). A roadmap for the e-judiciary system was approved and the development of the e-case management system in the criminal justice chain (SMEREKA) continued. However, the judiciary still suffers from severe understaffing and high workloads. Integrity, meritocracy and capacities of the judiciary and prosecutorial service, as well as the status of the Public Integrity Council remain weak. The Parliament failed to appoint internationally vetted candidates to the Constitutional Court (CCU), further delaying the renewal of the CCU. The position of the Prosecutor General remains politicised. The provisions on automatic closure of criminal cases due to expiry of pre-trial investigation time limits after the notice of suspicion and shortened investigation time limits led to the closure of several high-profile cases and others are at risk. Legislation introduced in July 2025 allows for transfer and appointment of prosecutors without competition and grants the Prosecutor General access to any pre-trial investigation material (except of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO)).

The Commission’s recommendations from last year were partially met and remain valid. In the coming year, Ukraine should in particular:

• in line with the Ukraine Plan, accelerate the filling of judicial vacancies and the evaluation of the qualifications (vetting) of sitting judges, with the involvement of the Public Integrity Council; operationalise the new specialised administrative courts;
• in line with the Ukraine Plan, continue to settle ongoing disciplinary proceedings; adopt legislation to improve judges’ declarations of integrity and their verification, the selection of management-level prosecutors, the disciplinary system for prosecutors and the capacity of the prosecutorial governance bodies; and launch the criminal e-case management system modules;
• in line with the Ukraine Plan, adopt the law to improve the enforcement of court decisions; launch the data collection system for the enforcement of court decisions, and implement the roadmap for the e-judiciary system;
• fill the remaining vacancies in the Constitutional Court without further delays and improve the constitutional procedure in line with the 2021 recommendations of the Venice Commission; adopt legislative amendments to make the selection and dismissal procedures for the Prosecutor General more objective, transparent and merit-based; improve the selection of Supreme Court judges and the verification of integrity declarations of Supreme Court and other highest courts’ judges with the temporary but meaningful involvement of independent experts nominated by international partners; remove the provision on the automatic closure of criminal cases due to the expiry of pre-trial investigation time limits and review the current time limits ; urgently extend the temporary involvement of internationally-nominated independent experts in the selection of members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ), and improve the transparency and quality of the selection processes, in particular regarding the selection of members of the Congress and Council of Judges, Council of Prosecutors, and the Head of the State Judicial Administration (SJA); and advance the reforms of the Bar, legal education and the National School of Judges;
• remove the provisions allowing the transfer and appointment of prosecutors to regional prosecution offices and the Office of Prosecutor General without competition and giving the right for the Prosecutor General to access any pre-trial investigation material, abstain from further enforcement of these provisions until they are repealed.

Fight against corruption

Ukraine has some level of preparation in the area of anti-corruption. Limited progress was made. The specialised anti-corruption institutions (NABU, SAPO, HACC) continued delivering on their mandates and building a track-record by stepping up investigations, prosecutions and judgements of high-level corruption cases. The trend has been stagnating for investigations into corruption offences by other law enforcement agencies. The Parliament adopted a law in July, dismantling important safeguards for the independence of NABU and SAPO and putting their operational work under the authority of the politically appointed Prosecutor General. These amendments would have severely weakened Ukraine’s anti-corruption framework. The independence of NABU and SAPO was swiftly restored following domestic protests and strong concerns voiced by international partners. Legislative initiatives presented as protecting businesses or national security were registered or adopted that risk undermining the effectiveness of the fight against corruption, including by limiting transparency of public registers and criminal liability for corruption offences. Anti-corruption institutions and civil society organisations report about growing pressure from state institutions, including through criminal investigations by law enforcement and security agencies. Overall, these developments cast doubts on Ukraine’s commitment to its anti-corruption agenda. Ukraine should advance its anti-corruption framework and prevent any backsliding on its notable reform achievements. Procedural delays and obstructions in high-level corruption proceedings should be addressed. Statutes of limitation and the grounds for their interruption and suspension should be reviewed and adjusted, in line with European standards.

The Commission’s recommendations from last year were partially implemented and remain valid. In the coming year, Ukraine should in particular:

• preserve the independence of anti-corruption institutions; expand the jurisdiction of NABU to cover all high-risk public positions; introduce robust safeguards against interference with the work of NABU and SAPO and circumvention of their exclusive jurisdiction in high-level corruption cases; strengthen SAPO’s autonomy to investigate Members of Parliament without prior approval by the Prosecutor General;
• further consolidate its track record on corruption cases, including the seizure and confiscation of criminal assets, focusing on top officials and high-impact cases; expand the personal scope of declarants and simplify and improve the procedures for the verification of asset declarations; strengthen the capacities and focus of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) to detect unexplained wealth; amend the Criminal Procedure Code to alleviate impediments and procedural delays to the efficient holding of criminal proceedings, particularly in high-level corruption cases;
• in line with the Ukraine Plan, increase the number of judges and administrative staff in the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC); develop and adopt the Anti-corruption Strategy and the State Anti-Corruption Programme

Quelle: Europäische Kommission: Ukraine 2025 Report, November 2025. https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/17115494-8122-4d10-8a06-2cf275eecde7_en?filename=ukraine-report-2025.pdf.

Monitoring-Bericht der OECD zum Stand der Korruptionsbekämpfung

Die OECD hat im September 2025 den fünften Monitoring-Bericht der Ukraine zum Stand des Istanbul Anti-Corruption Plans vorgelegt. Laut dem Bericht hat die Ukraine trotz des russischen Angriffskrieges wichtige Fortschritte bei Anti-Korruptionsreformen erzielt. Gleichzeitig bestehen weiterhin erhebliche Risiken für die Korruptionsbekämpfung: politische Einflussnahme, unvollendete Justizreformen, schwache Durchsetzung gegenüber hochrangigen Amtsträger:innen und Ausnahmen im öffentlichen Beschaffungswesen. Der Bericht kritisiert die Angriffe auf unabhängige Institutionen und weist darauf hin, dass Reformen nur Bestand haben, wenn politische Kontrolle begrenzt werden, die Unabhängigkeit der Institutionen gesichert wird und die internationale Gemeinschaft konsequent auf Einhaltung drängt.

Im Folgenden dokumentieren wir die Zusammenfassung des 236 Seiten langen Berichts.

***

Executive Summary

This follow-up monitoring report was prepared within the framework of the fifth round of monitoring of the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan (IAP). It evaluates Ukraine’s anti-corruption reforms against a set of indicators and benchmarks under nine performance areas that focus on anti-corruption policy, prevention of corruption, and enforcement of criminal liability for corruption offences. The report mainly highlights developments that took place during the 2023-2024 assessment period, with a focus on progress made since the baseline review in areas where baseline findings were available—anti-corruption policy, asset declarations, independence of judiciary, specialised anti-corruption institutions, and enforcement of corruption offences, while providing baseline evaluation for other areas covered by the IAP fifth round of monitoring.

Ukraine has made significant anti-corruption progress despite the challenges of Russia’s full-scale invasion. Notable achievements have been the launch of a modern inclusive system for monitoring anti-corruption strategy implementation, advances in whistleblower protection, and formal independence granted to the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Moreover, Ukraine has applied to accede to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention having undertaken important legal reforms to meet the accession requirements. Enforcement of corruption offences has increased, but legal and practical obstacles remain. Extraordinary judicial vetting must be completed and judicial independence ensured in practice.

Anti-corruption policy

Ukraine has progressed the implementation of its ambitious anti-corruption policy though many measures remain pending until the policy cycle ends in 2025. A major achievement is the launch of an online monitoring system enabling real-time, transparent progress tracking and direct stakeholder feedback. However, the next strategy should be more targeted and realistic prioritising high-risk areas and aligned with resources.

Conflict of interest and asset declarations

Ukraine has a comprehensive legal framework for preventing and managing conflicts of interest, with growing track record of detection of violations. Enforcement, however, remains weak, especially in relation to high-level officials. The asset declaration system is among the region’s most advanced—comprehensive, transparent, fully digitised and supported by automated verification software. Ukraine should strengthen full verifications of asset declarations, going beyond accuracy and completeness checks, focusing on high-level officials, and ensure adequate follow-up and enforcement.

Protection of whistleblowers

Ukraine has developed a comprehensive whistleblower protection framework covering both public and private sectors. It includes important guarantees such as legal aid, protection of family members, choice between reporting channels and financial incentives, though personal safety measures only apply within criminal proceedings. The National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) has the relevant mandate and powers but requires more resources. The launch of the Unified Portal of Whistleblower Reports is a major step, but Ukraine should ensure full operation of public sector reporting channels and their integration into the portal, increase public awareness and extend equivalent protection to the defence sector.

Business integrity

Full-scale war has forced Ukraine to balance transparency with national security leading to a deprioritisation of certain disclosure requirements for public companies. Progress was made to enhance the accuracy of the Unified Beneficial Ownership register but verification should extend beyond basic checks. The Business Ombudsman Council continues to operate effectively but its sustainability must be secured. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) have developed anti-corruption programmes but competitive processes for appointing state representatives to boards are still lacking, and CEO competitive selections have not taken place due to martial law.

Integrity in public procurement

Despite wartime challenges, reforms in public procurement have continued, including improvements to the Prozorro e-procurement system. However, direct contracting has risen to nearly half of all procurements. While exemptions from competitive tendering during martial law are overall justified, some remain too broad and prone to corruption risks. Ukraine is encouraged to narrow exceptions, clearly define urgency as a legitimate basis and reduce reliance on non-competitive procedures. Capacity of procurement professionals must be increased as well as the enforcement of procurement violations and related corruption offences.

Independence of judiciary

Since the baseline review, Ukraine has resumed long-stalled judicial career and disciplinary processes. However, a significant backlog and high number of vacancies remain, with vetting of judges appointed before the 2016 Constitutional reform still unfinished. This raises concerns about access to justice. Ukraine must ensure that judicial governance bodies have sufficient quorum to operate and move these processes. While a reformed system of disciplinary inspectors has been launched, the objectivity and fairness of disciplinary proceedings must be ensured in practice and liability for procedural delays must not hinder individual independence of judges.

Independence of public prosecution service

Ukraine should address the long-standing recommendation to depoliticise the appointment and dismissal of the Prosecutor General by introducing a transparent, non-political selection process. While some appointments have been competitive, most managerial positions had been filled through direct appointments. Amendments adopted in July 2025 paused merit-based appointments for the duration of martial law. The prosecution system includes governance bodies with civil society participation, which is positive. However, vague grounds for disciplinary liability grant wide discretion in disciplinary cases.

Specialised anti-corruption institutions

The Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) has gained formal independence but still cannot resolve jurisdictional disputes or independently initiate cases against Members of Parliament. The mandate of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) to investigate high-level corruption must be safeguarded and extended to cover all high-level officials. NABU also requires independent wiretapping capacity and timely access to independent forensic expertise and financial information. The Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA) needs greater independence, transparency, and due process safeguards to build accountability and public trust.

Enforcement of corruption offences

Ukraine has achieved progress in prosecuting high-level corruption, with growing convictions and sanctions despite the war. Yet obstacles to effective enforcement persist. Restrictive time limits and statutes of limitations should be removed. The recently introduced autonomous criminal liability of legal persons should be extended to all corruption offences, confiscation measures and money laundering prosecutions must be strengthened, and efforts made to recover proceeds of corruption from abroad. Ukraine is encouraged to protect the independence and jurisdiction of its specialised anti-corruption institutions and further strengthen its high-level corruption enforcement track record.

Recent developments highlighted persistent and recurring risks of reform backsliding that threatens hard-won achievements. These included an attempt to strip NABU and SAPO from independence, rejection of a competitively selected candidate for Director of the Economic Security Bureau (ESB), and proposed amendments that would effectively decriminalise corruption in the high-risk defence procurement sector. Following strong domestic and international pushback NABU’s and SAPO’s independence was fully restored, the competitively selected candidate was appointed as ESB Director, and the defence procurement draft law did not advance. These events underscore the need for continued vigilance to safeguard reform gains.

Quelle: OECD: Ukraine Fifth Round of Anti-Corruption Monitoring Follow Up Report. The Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan, 2025. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/ukraine-fifth-round-of-anti-corruption-monitoring-follow-up-report_097f0a38-en.html.

Unabhängiger Bericht ukrainischer NGOs zum Stand der Korruptionsbekämpfung

Der »Shadow Report on Chapter 23 “Justice and fundamental rights” and Chapter 24 “Justice, Freedom and Security” of the European Commission’s Report on Ukraine’s Progress under the 2024 EU Enlargement Package« ist ein Bericht mehrerer ukrainischer Zivilgesellschaftsorganisationen, der den Europäischen Kommissionsbericht 2025 zur Ukraine ergänzt. Er bewertet detailliert die Fortschritte der Ukraine in den EU-Beitrittskapiteln 23 und 24 (Rechtsstaatlichkeit, Grundrechte, Justiz, Sicherheit, Freiheit). Mit über 500 Empfehlungen liefert er der ukrainischen Regierung und internationalen Partnern konkrete Reformprioritäten. Von den mehr als 1.000 Seiten des Berichts befassen sich etwa 100 Seiten detailliert mit der Korruptionsbekämpfung.

Nachstehend dokumentieren wir die Zusammenfassung des Kapitels zum Stand der Korruptionsbekämpfung in der Ukraine.

***

The period from September 2024 to July 2025 was characterised by mixed trends in the field of combating corruption in Ukraine, with certain positive changes and persistent challenges in the work of anti-corruption institutions.

Positive developments include the large-scale recruitment of new staff by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), the approval of NABU’s development strategy, and the start of work on SAPO’s institutional development strategy. Some achievements include the adoption of a law that improved the procedure for concluding plea bargains in corruption cases, the formulation by the Supreme Court of important legal positions on the differentiation of official offences, as well as measures taken by NABU to enhance the level of information security. In addition, the first request of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) for the enforcement of special confiscation is under consideration in Switzerland. While in October, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine updated the State Anti-Corruption Programme for 2023–2025, retaining its key measures, its implementation is currently not reaching a satisfactory level.

At the same time, significant challenges persist that hinder effective anti-corruption efforts. By Law No. 4555-IX (Draft Law No. 12414), the institutional independence and autonomy of the SAPO and NABU were put at risk for 9 days. The adoption of this Law was accompanied by violations of democratic procedures and provoked a strongly negative reaction from both society and the international community. Although the harmful Law No. 4555-IX was almost entirely deactivated on 31 July 2025, certain of its provisions remain in force and may have negative consequences, as do the disputed provisions of Law No. 4560-IX.

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has for a long time failed to improve the tools for responding to procedural abuses, resulting in an average case duration at the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) of 618 days — the highest figure since the court began its operation, with procedural abuses recorded in 55% of cases. The problem of effective confiscation of criminal assets continues to exist, and the instruments of “extended” confiscation require improvement with regard to the grounds for seizure of property. The situation has worsened concerning the dissemination of restricted-access information in NABU cases.

Critical problems remain the lack of quality forensic expertise for NABU, the retention in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of the provision on mandatory closure of criminal proceedings due to the expiry of pre-trial investigation deadlines, unsynchronized approaches to the compilation of statistical reporting across various institutions, and insufficient information on the implementation of HACC judgments on confiscated assets. Against the background of these problems, particular concern is caused by cases of suspects and defendants fleeing, as well as the growing number of cases at risk of closure due to expiration of limitation periods. Gaps also remain relevant in the effectiveness of electronic asset declaration, state funding of political parties, the whistleblower mechanism, lobbying, de-oligarchisation, corruption risk management, and monitoring of conflicts of interest and related anti-corruption requirements.

During the reporting period, new problems also emerged, primarily related to the ineffective second competitive selection of judges for the HACC and the Appeal Chamber of the HACC, which may lead to future judicial selections taking place without the participation of the Public Council of International Experts (PCIE). Concerns are also raised by the registration of a constitutional submission regarding the unconstitutionality of the participation in selection commissions for the heads and staff of anti-corruption bodies of members delegated by international organisations.

Quelle: Transparency International Ukraine: Coalition of CSOs Releases a Shadow Report for the European Commission, 20.10.2025, https://ti-ukraine.org/en/news/coalition-of-csos-releases-a-shadow-report-for-the-european-commission/.