Let’s imagine a situation typical of Ukrainian reality. A citizen becomes the victim of an illegal search, an unfounded arrest, or the fabrication of evidence. Subsequently, the state acknowledges the violation and pays compensation—from the state budget, that is, from taxpayers’ money. At the same time, the specific perpetrator—whether an investigator, prosecutor, or judge—avoids any personal liability by hiding behind their status and institutional solidarity.

These are not isolated cases, nor is this a theoretical problem. Two related bills—No. 14350 and No. 14351, registered in late 2025 by a group of members of parliament—are aimed precisely at this systemic flaw in the Ukrainian justice system. Their stated goal is to introduce genuine personal criminal and civil liability for officials in law enforcement agencies, the prosecutor’s office, and the courts for harm caused to citizens.

Is this a long-awaited step toward justice or a potential threat to the stability of the justice system? Let’s examine the substance of the matter.

The Essence of the Legislative Initiatives

Criminal Provisions: Bill No. 14350

Draft No. 14350 proposes comprehensive amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine aimed at strengthening liability for abuse of power in the justice system and law enforcement.

Among the key changes are the following.

1. Expansion of the scope of “state officials” in the note to Article 127 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

In the note to Article 127 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (torture), the term “state officials” is expanded to include officials of operational-investigative agencies, pretrial investigation bodies, the prosecutor’s office, and the courts. This means that their actions in cases of torture or unlawful deprivation of liberty will be classified under a special, more severe criminal offense.

2. Law enforcement officers are classified as perpetrators of the aggravated offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 146 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (unlawful deprivation of liberty or kidnapping).

This thereby increases the liability for such actions by officials of agencies conducting operational-investigative activities, pretrial investigations, the prosecutor’s office, and the courts.

3. Clarification of the list of law enforcement officials in the operative part of Article 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Specifically, it is proposed to identify (specify) among law enforcement officials those who are officers of agencies conducting operational-investigative activities, pretrial investigations, the prosecutor’s office, and the courts. The focus is on the actions of officials that have caused significant harm to human rights and freedoms.

4. Introduction of a new Article 365-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The draft introduces a separate criminal offense—unlawful actions by officials of agencies conducting operational-investigative activities, pretrial investigations, the prosecutor’s office, and the courts. This includes, in particular, the unlawful notification of suspicion, the imposition of a preventive measure, a search, the seizure of property, the use of operational-investigative measures, or the rendering of an unjust decision.

For certain of these actions that have led to serious consequences, the article provides for a penalty of 7 to 10 years of imprisonment, along with a ban on holding relevant positions.

5. Amendments to Other Articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The changes also apply to the following articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine: Article 366 (official forgery), 371 (knowingly unlawful detention or imprisonment), and a number of related provisions—with a clear focus on the liability of officials within the criminal justice system.

Civil Law Section: Bill No. 14351

The second bill proposes a revision of approaches to compensation for damages in civil proceedings.

1. Amendments to Articles 1173–1176 of the Civil Code of Ukraine.

It is proposed to establish that damages caused by unlawful decisions or actions of law enforcement officers, prosecutors, or judges shall be compensated directly by the persons at fault—using their property and income. In cases involving multiple perpetrators, joint and several liability is envisaged.

2. Corresponding amendments to special legislation.

The bill aligns this approach with the laws governing the National Police, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), and other agencies, eliminating the possibility of shifting financial liability to the state.

Both bills are set to take effect on the date of publication, with a three-month transition period to harmonize subordinate legislation. As of early 2026, they have been registered with the Verkhovna Rada and are in the preliminary review stage.

Why This Issue Has Arisen

Formally, Ukrainian legislation already contains provisions on liability for abuse of power and on compensation for damages. However, in practice, liability is collective rather than personal. The state acts as the “payer” for the actions of its officials, while specific officials rarely face real consequences.

This gives rise to several systemic problems:

• a culture of impunity, where the risk to officials is minimal;
• shifting the financial burden onto society;
• lengthy and complex legal proceedings for victims;
• an erosion of trust in the justice system.

As a result, a fundamental principle is violated: the party that caused the harm must compensate for it.

Potential Benefits of the Initiatives

If adopted, these bills could have a positive systemic effect:

• increased personal accountability and professional diligence among officials;
• providing real protection of citizens’ rights, without years of litigation against the state;
• reducing the burden on the budget, especially during wartime;
• restoring public trust in the institutions of justice.

In essence, this represents a shift in philosophy: from “the state is responsible for everyone” to “everyone is responsible for their own decisions.”

Risks and Weaknesses

At the same time, these initiatives are not without serious risks.

First, excessive criminalization of procedural actions could create a chilling effect, where investigators and judges make decisions not based on the law but out of fear of liability.

Second, there is a risk of interference with the independence of judges and prosecutors, which is guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine. Personal liability must not become a tool for exerting pressure.

Third, the difficulty of proving intent and distinguishing between an unlawful act and an honest mistake could lead to legal uncertainty and an overload on the courts.

Finally, there remains the question of whether it is realistic to recover significant sums from specific officials, which could potentially shift the financial burden back onto the state.

Conclusion

Bills No. 14350 and No. 14351 represent a bold attempt to break the tradition of collective impunity in the justice system. They have the potential to become an important step in fostering a culture of personal accountability of public authorities to citizens.

At the same time, without careful refinement, clear safeguards, and professional debate, these initiatives may create more problems than solutions. The key task for Parliament is to strike a balance between fair punishment for abuse of power and preserving the independence and effectiveness of the justice system.

For society, this discussion is of fundamental importance, as it concerns not only the accountability of public officials but also the true value of our rights and freedoms.