The Veterans’ Code certainly has a right to exist and is necessary for standardizing the chaotic legislation in the field of veterans’ policy. At the same time, its adoption is possible only after substantial revisions to the existing draft bill No. 14265.
The Idea of Codification and Issues with the Bill
The issue of creating a Veterans Code of Ukraine is currently one of the key issues in the reform of legislation regarding the protection of veterans’ rights. The idea of codification involves systematizing scattered provisions and creating a single regulatory act that would comprehensively regulate the legal status of veterans.
At the same time, an analysis of the government’s draft Code on the Protection of Statehood, Independence, and the Status of Defenders of the State (No. 14265) reveals a number of critical problems that make its adoption in its current form impossible.
The first problem is the discrepancy between the stated purpose and the actual content of the bill. The document is presented as a codification of veterans’ legislation. However, the annexes to the bill paint a different picture: it proposes amendments to 34 laws, while repealing only one law. This raises a logical question: where exactly does the systematization and consolidation of scattered provisions into a single piece of legislation take place? This approach does not actually replace the multitude of laws but merely adds to it.
A second critical issue is the large number of cross-references in the text of the bill. Of the document’s 56 articles, 30 contain references to other regulatory acts, which means that a significant portion of regulation is being delegated to subordinate legislation. Moreover, a significant number of provisions require the Cabinet of Ministers to establish the procedure for exercising these rights, which effectively makes veterans’ rights contingent on future government decisions.
The phrase “in the manner determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine” appears more than 30 times in the text of the bill. This means that key issues regarding benefits, payments, and the procedures and conditions for their provision will be determined not by the law itself, but by subordinate regulations. As a result, there is a risk that directly applicable provisions will be replaced by a mechanism of manual control.
What the Veterans’ Code Should Be
When we talk about the Veterans’ Code, we are referring to a document of a fundamentally different nature. It should be a document similar to the Traffic Rules—one that a veteran or a member of their family can open and immediately find a clear answer to: what rights they are entitled to, what benefits are provided, to what extent, and under what conditions they are granted.
The Code should not be a document for scholars, lawyers, or judges. It should be as practical a tool as possible, allowing veterans to understand their rights here and now, the liability of government agencies for violations of those rights, and the procedure for obtaining support without navigating bureaucratic mazes.
At the same time, the draft law contains conceptual provisions that deserve attention. In particular, one of the key innovations is the distinction between state and social support for veterans. The proposed approach stipulates that even in cases of minor crimes against national security, a veteran should not be completely ostracized by society.
In such cases, the individual may lose the right to state support in the form of economic benefits, but will retain access to social support, including rehabilitation, psychological assistance, and social services. This approach can be viewed as an element of the “state-as-partner” model, which helps individuals rebuild social ties even after making mistakes.
Systemic Shortcomings of the Bill
At the same time, an analysis of the comments made by the Coordination Headquarters on the Treatment of Prisoners of War also points to a number of systemic shortcomings in the draft law. In particular, the scope of individuals covered by the bill does not fully correspond to the potential range of its practical application.
The draft laws provide for the application of the relevant provisions exclusively to war veterans—combatants, persons with war-related disabilities, and war participants. At the same time, individuals for whom it has been established that they were deprived of their personal liberty as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine—including military personnel and civilians who are or were held captive, as well as their family members—are left outside the scope of legal regulation.
The lack of explicit mention of these categories of persons effectively means that they and their families are not covered by the social guarantees provided for, which is inconsistent with the goal of state policy to support those who have suffered as a result of armed aggression against Ukraine.
Furthermore, the draft laws propose distinguishing between two categories of individuals: veterans of 20th-century wars and veterans from the period following Ukraine’s declaration of independence. This approach appears excessive and serves to complicate the legal framework while overburdening the text of the draft law with additional categories that lack obvious regulatory significance.
Certain provisions of the draft effectively duplicate the provisions of subordinate legislation, in particular those already regulated by the Regulations on the Unified State Register of War Veterans. This is inconsistent with the principle of the hierarchy of normative legal acts and may lead to duplication of legal regulation at various levels.
Additionally, certain provisions of the draft law grant officials of military units discretionary authority to determine the procedure for submitting documents to establish veteran status, including for individuals who were or are currently held captive. Granting such powers without clearly defined procedural criteria may create risks of inconsistent application of the law and unjustified restrictions on access to the exercise of relevant rights.
The Need to Revise the Code
Thus, the Veterans Code certainly has a right to exist and is necessary for unifying the chaotic legislation in the field of veterans’ policy. At the same time, its adoption is possible only after substantial revisions. The legislature must create a truly self-sufficient and systematic regulatory act that contains clear rules, transparent procedures for judicial protection, and real financial backing for the declared social guarantees.
Only under these conditions will the Veterans’ Code be able to fulfill its primary function—to become a clear and effective tool for protecting the rights of those who defended the state.
Author: Andriy Yosipov, Attorney and Partner at Barristers
Source: https://zib.com.ua/ua/171601.html