On 28 April 2026, the Verkhovna Rada adopted Bill No. 15150—a completely revised version of the Civil Code of Ukraine—at its first reading. The 803-page document is intended to replace the current 2003 code and form the basis for regulating property rights, contracts, family relations, inheritance and the personal rights of citizens. The authors of the bill are the Speaker of Parliament, Ruslan Stefanchuk, and a number of MPs from the Servant of the People faction. The draft has already drawn criticism from human rights activists, lawyers and state bodies due to a number of controversial provisions.
Why was it decided to rewrite the code from scratch?
The authors of the draft bill justify the need for recodification by arguing that the current Civil Code has exhausted its potential for modernisation. According to them, the document requires a systematic update in line with European standards, adaptation to the digital economy, and the final ‘de-Sovietisation’ of private law. Work on the draft has been ongoing for over seven years, involving judges, academics and other specialists in the field. The document comprises nine books covering the general principles of private law, personal non-property rights, property rights, intellectual property, contract law, family law, inheritance, private international law and the publicity of civil rights.
A previous version of the draft bill, numbered 14394, was registered in January 2026. Following a wave of criticism, the authors changed the number to 15150 and amended certain provisions. In particular, provisions regarding the possibility of lowering the marriage age to 14 by court order, the provision on ‘unwillingness to have a child’ or ‘inability to conceive’ as grounds for divorce, and the legal consequences of a religious marriage ceremony were removed from the text. No explanations regarding the reasons for these changes appeared in the accompanying documents.
Read also:
Living with Epilepsy in Ukraine: From Outdated Myths to Cutting-Edge Digital Solutions
Good behaviour as a new restriction on rights
One of the most controversial provisions of the draft bill is the introduction of the concept of ‘good morals’ (boni mores) as a basis for regulating private relations. According to the definition in the draft, good morals refer to the set of moral norms and principles, standards of ethical conduct, and socially accepted notions of proper behaviour. The term appears 45 times in the code and applies to a wide range of legal relationships.
According to the text of the draft law, an individual’s capacity to hold civil rights not defined by the Constitution or by law is contingent upon compliance with good morals. The right to freedom of natural existence, the right to donate, and the right to dispose of one’s body after death—all these are subject to the requirement of conformity with moral norms. The court may also be guided by public morality when deciding on the reconciliation of spouses. The upbringing of children by their parents must likewise not conflict with this principle.
The Verkhovna Rada Commissioner for Human Rights, Dmytro Lubinets, warned that there is a risk of arbitrary interpretation and application of public morality. In his view, this could lead to discriminatory restrictions on individuals’ rights based on their personal characteristics. The Ombudsman emphasised that criteria based on evaluative concepts without clear specification do not meet the requirements of legal predictability and legal certainty, which are components of the rule of law.
Family law and the stance on same-sex couples
The draft law effectively excludes same-sex couples from the scope of family law. Article 1474 defines a de facto family union exclusively as two people of the opposite sex living together as a family without being married. There is no provision for legal recognition of same-sex couples who consider themselves a family.
The law expressly prohibits persons of the same sex from jointly adopting a child. Even if a couple is already raising a child of one of the partners, the other partner will not be granted any parental rights or responsibilities. Reproductive rights are also restricted: a person cannot dispose of their biological material for the benefit of a same-sex partner.
Under private international law, a marriage contracted and recognised abroad will not be valid in Ukraine if the partners are of the same sex. For inheritance purposes, partners in a de facto union are entitled to inherit in the third order of succession; however, as this union is recognised only for opposite-sex couples, this provision will not apply to same-sex families. If a person in a formal marriage changes their gender, the marriage will automatically be deemed invalid from the date of registration of the gender change.
The human rights organisation ‘Insight’ emphasised that Article 6 retains the concept of ‘public morality’ as one of the foundations of legal norms, which opens the door to the application of subjective conservative notions of ‘proper’ behaviour. Critics of the bill point out that such provisions contradict Ukraine’s European integration commitments regarding the introduction of registered partnerships.
Read also: Attacks have increased, and so have the needs. What happened in Ukraine’s healthcare sector in March
New rules on marriage and divorce
The draft bill introduces a number of changes to the regulation of marital relations. Under Article 1513, the court may take measures to reconcile the spouses if this is in accordance with public policy. If the spouses have minor children, the court is obliged to set a deadline for the parties to reconcile. This means that even if one of the spouses wishes to divorce quickly, the process will automatically be delayed.
Inna Sovsun, a Member of Parliament from the ‘Holos’ faction, pointed out that the draft lacks a clear definition of the concept of ‘public morality’. In her view, if a judge decides that divorce is immoral and unethical, the spouses will be forced to attempt reconciliation.
The issue of surnames following divorce is regulated separately. A former husband may apply to the court and demand that his wife revert to his surname. The court is granted the right to assess the morality of a woman’s conduct after the marriage has been dissolved. If a person changes their mind after becoming engaged, compensation for moral damage may be claimed from them.
The rules on maintenance are also changing. The recovery of arrears for past periods has been limited to one year, instead of ten years under the current code. Assisted reproductive technologies are permitted only on strict medical grounds.
Property rights and the institution of possession
The draft law introduces significant changes to property law regulations, which have raised concerns among lawyers and environmental organisations. Under the draft, only entries in the public register are recognised, and individuals cannot claim ignorance of information that is subject to public disclosure. The lack of access to registers during the period of martial law is not taken into account.
The code introduces a rule regarding competing claims to a single property: priority is given to the person who first submitted an application for registration. An entry in the register, even if made unlawfully, cannot be removed if there is a bona fide purchaser. Under Article 442, if a person takes possession of another’s immovable property and continues to hold it for 10 years, they acquire ownership of that property.
The draft law revives the medieval concept of ‘possession’ — a person’s exercise of actual control over an item regardless of the existence of a legal title. The possessor is presumed to have a lawful basis for possession unless proven otherwise. Lawyer Mykhailo Kolyadintsev pointed out that internally displaced persons, heirs, people on long-term business trips, or those forced to leave the country could be adversely affected by these provisions. Without a mechanism to suspend the time limits for these categories of citizens, the amendment could deprive a bona fide owner who is temporarily absent of the right to protection.
The Ukrainian Environmental Group stated that it would be sufficient to simply enter forests, rivers, protected areas and archaeological sites stolen from the state into the register, and the state and the community would effectively lose the right to take legal action over them. Deputy Minister of Justice Olena Ferens reported that the Ministry of Justice had proposed completely removing Book 9, ‘Publicity of Civil Rights’, from the previous draft bill.
Read also:
Attacks have increased, and so have the needs. What happened in Ukraine’s healthcare sector in March
Critical comments regarding legal capacity and capacity to act
Lawyers have identified issues with the draft bill’s basic definitions. Article 31 redefines civil legal capacity in terms of the ‘ability to exercise’ rather than ‘to possess’. According to Mykhailo Kolyadintsev, this creates a risk of an unconstitutional narrowing of the concept of legal capacity for infants, persons in a coma and persons with severe disorders of consciousness. By equating legal capacity with the ‘ability to perform’, the distinction from legal capacity is lost.
Article 42 broadens the grounds for restricting or declaring a person legally incapable, including the phrases ‘other disorder’ and ‘pathological gambling or other addiction’. Lawyers warn that individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder, in particular veterans and internally displaced persons, could potentially fall under these categories. Vague wording creates scope for arbitrary judicial discretion and does not meet the requirement of legal certainty under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 204 abolishes the presumption of the validity of a transaction, which exists in the current Code. Lawyers predict a risk of an increase in disputes over the validity of transactions and a weakening of trust in notarial deeds and registration procedures. Kyiv City Council member Viktoria Ptashnyk explained this change using an example: an item was sold, the money was received, it was handed over to the buyer, the buyer used it and then wrote a letter declaring the contract invalid; now you have to prove in court that the contract was valid.
Positive developments, according to legal experts
Despite all the criticism, legal experts also highlight the positive changes in the draft law. Article 223 abolishes the strict requirements for the written form of a legal transaction and introduces a new concept of electronic form. This could equate communications via messaging apps with the written form, which is in line with modern commercial practice and brings Ukrainian legislation into line with international standards.
Articles 37, 38, 43 and 47 expand the procedural rights of minors, persons of limited legal capacity and persons lacking legal capacity. These include the rights to self-defence, to apply to the courts, to the Verkhovna Rada’s Commissioner for Human Rights and to the prosecutor. According to lawyer Mykhailo Kolyadintsev, these innovations close a real gap in Ukrainian legal practice, where children and legally incapacitated persons often lacked an effective mechanism to protect themselves against abuse by their own legal representatives.
Article 196 introduces a new direct liability of the state for harm to the life and health of citizens. Twenty-one days have been allocated for the preparation of the draft law for the second reading. All participants involved in the deliberations stated that they are preparing their proposals for the second reading. 254 MPs voted in favour of the draft law at the first reading.
Read more:
Ukraine is reviving its agricultural sector by demining fields
