The New Civil Code and Public Anxiety: Why a Major Legal Reform Has Already Become a Political Conflict
The Verkhovna Rada has adopted the draft of the new Civil Code of Ukraine in the first reading. Formally, this is a large-scale update of private law, which has not been revised on such a scale for more than 20 years. But the public reaction has shown that the document is perceived not only as a legal reform, but as a political decision capable of affecting citizens’ rights, business, family relations, property, inheritance, digital assets, the work of courts and even the boundary between working time and personal time. Time for Action examined why the new Civil Code is being called both an attempt to modernize legislation and a document with serious risks that require deep revision before the second reading. The new Civil Code is intended to replace the previous version, which had been in force for more than two decades. Its declared goal is to systematically update private law, remove contradictions, take into account new realities, digital tools, changing business models and the emergence of legal relations that simply did not exist before. In this sense, the very idea of modernization looks logical Ukrainian society, the economy and technologies have indeed changed much faster than basic civil legislation.
But the problem is not the need for renewal itself. The problem is that such a large document cannot pass through parliament as an ordinary technical amendment. It affects too many spheres of life for society to learn about the most controversial provisions only after the vote in the first reading. This became one of the reasons for protests and a wave of distrust. The draft was supported by 254 members of parliament. After that, protesters gathered on Independence Square, demanding that the document be revised before the second reading. Their criticism is focused not only on one provision, but on the overall direction of the document: activists believe that some provisions may contradict human rights and Ukraine’s European integration obligations. The biggest controversy was caused by a provision that allowed marriage from the age of 14 by court decision. After a wave of criticism, it was decided to remove it before the second reading. But the very fact that such a provision appeared in the document was revealing. It strengthened the suspicion that the text may contain other controversial norms that need careful review, not formal revision. That is why part of society is speaking about the danger of a “return to Soviet-style practices.” This is not necessarily a literal comparison with the Soviet code. Rather, it is a fear of vague wording, increased judicial discretion, conservative norms in family law and the possible narrowing of the rights of vulnerable groups. In a democratic legal system, the law should give a person more predictability, not create additional dependence on how a particular judge or authority interprets abstract categories.
One of the most discussed innovations is the right to informational peace. It provides that a person who performs work, provides services, serves or fulfills contractual obligations has the right, outside working hours or outside the time defined by a contract, not to answer phone calls, messages, emails and other forms of communication. For workers, this could become an important protection. In many sectors, constant availability has long become an informal requirement. A person formally finishes the working day, but continues to receive calls, messages, urgent requests, edits, tasks or reminders. If the new norm works, it could change employers’ attitude toward the boundaries of working time.
The main point of this norm is that a person cannot be held legally liable or face negative consequences for refusing to respond outside working hours. This is important not only for employees, but also for those who work under contracts, provide services or are involved in performing tasks in another form. At the same time, the right to informational peace has exceptions. Restrictions are possible in cases of threats to national security, the need to ensure public order, protect public health, prevent emergency or accident situations, in cases of harm to the life or health of others, as well as in cases defined by a contract. The last point may become the most problematic. If contracts allow the right to informational peace to be restricted too broadly, employers or clients may effectively return the old practice of constant availability, but through formally agreed terms. Therefore, before the second reading, it is important to clearly define where the real need for communication ends and where abuse by the stronger party begins. The Code also contains a number of other innovations. National custom, the custom of a national minority and a local act of a legal entity are proposed as sources of law. The suspension and restoration of civil rights and obligations are distinguished in their dynamics. The principle of prohibition of contradictory behavior is introduced. Preventive expenses are included in damages. New approaches are envisaged for legal entities, property rights, obligations, community property of spouses, inheritance of digital things, the right to reparations and disposal of reproductive biological material.
Some of these changes may be useful. Digital identification, inheritance of digital things, new mechanisms for business, a derivative claim to protect companies from dishonest managers all of this corresponds to the reality in which citizens and companies have long been living. The problem is that such innovations require very high-quality application of the law. If judicial practice is unstable, even a progressive norm may turn into a source of disputes. This is where the main risk of a major reform arises. A law may look modern on paper, but what will really matter is how courts, notaries, employers, businesses, state bodies and citizens themselves apply it. If the wording is unclear, each side will interpret it in its own favor. For the stronger side, this opens space for pressure. For the weaker side, it creates additional risks. Separate criticism concerns family relations and human rights. Among the disputed issues are the definition of family as a union of a man and a woman, the question of the religious status of marriage, possible weakening of protection against domestic violence, and risks to the rights of women, children and LGBTQ people. Activists also speak about risks for LGBTQ military personnel and women in the military, who are already in a difficult position because of the war and social prejudice.
For Ukraine, which is moving toward the European Union, such issues have not only internal significance. If certain provisions truly contradict European human rights standards, this may create problems for the European integration logic of the reform. A document presented as modernization and approximation to European standards should not contain norms perceived as a retreat from the principles of equality and non-discrimination. There is also an economic part of the criticism. Some experts draw attention to issues of property, ownership, state property, inheritance, transfer of rights, the role of digital tools and possible risks for citizens. In a large code, even one unclear norm in the field of property can have long-term consequences, because it will affect judicial practice, transactions, inheritance disputes, corporate conflicts and asset protection. Some politicians and experts believe there is no catastrophe in the new Civil Code, but the document needs serious revision. Others question the very need to adopt such a large act during wartime. There is an argument that after the abolition of the Commercial Code, gaps appeared in legislation that need to be filled. But there is also the opposite position current civil legislation did not require such urgent rewriting, and haste only increases the risks. Politically, this situation shows a weak point in Ukrainian lawmaking. Major reforms are often presented as necessary modernization, but society becomes involved in the discussion only when the document has already passed the first stage of voting. In the case of the Civil Code, this is especially dangerous, because it is not a narrow law, but rules that will affect millions of people every day.
The new Civil Code can become a useful reform only under one condition: if controversial, unclear and potentially discriminatory provisions are removed from it before the second reading, and key provisions are explained to society clearly and openly. Without this, the document will remain not a symbol of modernization, but a source of distrust. The most important thing now is not to rush the final vote. A code of this scale must undergo careful legal, human rights, European integration and public review. It is necessary to clearly separate the truly needed renewal of private law from provisions that may narrow human rights or create opportunities for manipulation. The right to informational peace, digital things, new mechanisms for business, inheritance of reparations and modernization of civil relations may be a step forward. But this step must not be accompanied by norms that society perceives as a threat to rights, property or Ukraine’s European course. As of now, the new Civil Code looks not like a completed reform, but like a large and controversial project that requires deep work. Its future depends on whether parliament can correct mistakes, remove dangerous wording and prove that this is truly about modernizing the law, not about creating a new source of conflicts between citizens, business, the state and the courts.
About the Author
Related posts:
The New Civil Code and Child Support, What Changes for Parents and Children 
The Boundary Between Work and Private Time in the New Civil Code 
“Code 95”: How New European Requirements Are Changing the Rules for Ukrainian International Drivers 
Regulation of the Real Estate Services Market in Ukraine: Public Demand, Government Response, and Market Prospects
