How the "Lozovyi amendments" became a problem in Ukraine–EU relations

The cancellation or revision of the "Lozovyi amendments" has become an official commitment by Kyiv to the EU. A roadmap approved by the government and coordinated with the European Commission sets a deadline for amending the procedural legislation.

Society has been pushing for the revision of the "Lozovyi amendments" for years. These provisions were the basis for the closure of several high-profile cases (including the case of Tatarov, one of the Dubnevych cases, and others).

Despite public pressure, there are not enough votes in parliament to support the revision, and opponents of these changes have arguments in defense of their position.

However, it seems that Ukraine can no longer avoid making this decision.

Read more in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor: The EU’s criminal demands on Ukraine: why and how Kyiv will have to fix the Lozovyi amendments.

The Rule of Law Roadmap is a document the government approved two weeks ago. Formally, this Cabinet decision was made independently. Ukraine, it claims, set its own reform priorities.

In reality, however, these roadmaps were coordinated with the European Commission. They were deliberately adopted to bypass Hungary’s veto, to avoid losing time and to establish a list of reforms that Kyiv must implement on its path toward the EU. Therefore, these reforms are expected to receive special attention – provided that the Ukrainian authorities are genuinely committed to EU membership.

One of the issues included on this list is the "Lozovyi amendments."

The Ministry of Justice insists that revising the "Lozovyi amendments" has become an international obligation of Ukraine. In particular, under the agreement with the EU, the deadline for implementation is set for the third quarter of 2025.

It is important to emphasise that the option of completely repealing these amendments is currently not being considered.

Instead, the focus is on correcting them and finding a compromise – a view shared by all stakeholders, including Western partners.

It’s also worth noting that some of the controversial provisions introduced eight years ago by Andrii Lozovyi were repealed within the first year of their implementation; further revisions or repeals of some provisions followed. Currently, the debate centers mainly around a clause introduced in the spring of 2018, which limits the investigation period to two months after a suspect has been formally notified of suspicion. This period can only be extended if the investigator receives court permission each time, and the total period cannot exceed 6 or 12 months (depending on the severity of the crime).

Before the "Lozovyi amendments," this timeframe was unlimited, which was also problematic, so the current norm didn’t come out of nowhere.

For instance, businesses had complained about unjustifiably prolonged periods under suspicion. As a result, the business community is now one of the main opponents of lifting these restrictions.

Ironically, the debate is no longer about repealing the 12-month limit. The EU does not require it, the government’s current draft doesn’t propose it, and even prosecutors are not asking for a return to the "pre-Lozovyi reality."

Instead, the discussion focuses on two other aspects: the procedure for extending investigation deadlines and more importantly, the procedure to follow if the deadline is missed.

The key problem is the automatic closure of cases.

This is the issue raised by the EU's demands.

One of the "Lozovyi amendments" – the most controversial among those that remain – states that if a court finds a violation of investigation deadlines at any stage, it must close the case entirely and remove all liability from the suspect, even if prosecutors already have sufficient evidence of guilt.

Additionally, the European Commission emphasises that Ukraine must change its overall "philosophy." Its approach to the role of the prosecution, which was severely restricted by the "Lozovyi amendments."

One of the EU’s core arguments for a radical revision of the current rules is that no EU member state has such provisions. The United States also supports the EU's position on this matter.