What Kyiv must do to strengthen the EU's trust amid a corruption scandal
Events of the past week have once again brought the issue of high-level corruption in Ukraine to the forefront.
The EU has refrained from making official statements regarding Operation Midas, but in private conversations, European officials express both outrage and dismay concerned that aid to Ukraine’s energy sector may now become more complicated.
The key condition for overcoming this crisis is systemic change within Ukraine. Beyond dismissals and show punishment of those involved, it is essential to ensure that corrupt schemes cannot simply reappear under new names.
The most recent list of anti-corruption requirements for Ukraine is included in the EU Enlargement Report, as well as in a broader "shadow report" that served as one of the main sources for that document.
Read more about the EU’s expectations and requirements in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda's editor: EU demands? Not only Halushchenko. What Ukraine must do to combat corruption.
The list of tasks Ukraine must complete by 2026 as part of its EU accession process begins with the demand to "preserve the independence of anti-corruption institutions." This clearly refers to recent developments in July.
However, simply "not dismantling" reforms is not sufficient.
In particular, the EU report calls to "extend the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) to all public positions with a high level of risk," specifying that this includes officials such as the leadership of the President’s Office and regional governeurs.
In practice, and contrary to the law, there has been competition among law enforcement agencies in Ukraine, allowing corruption cases involving top officials to be "taken over" by the Security Service (SBU) or the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI).
The EU demands that this practice be stopped, categorising it as an attempt by the authorities to limit the work of NABU and the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). Therefore, for 2026, the EU has set the requirement to "introduce reliable safeguards against interference in the work of NABU and SAPO and against bypassing their exclusive jurisdiction in top-level corruption cases."
Another recommendation concerns the full investigation of corruption involving members of parliament. Brussels demands that Ukraine "strengthen SAPO’s autonomy in investigating cases against MPs without prior approval from the Prosecutor General."
Currently, the initiation of criminal proceedings and authorisation of investigative actions involving MPs must be approved by the politically dependent Prosecutor General.
Moreover, the EU’s official requirements include changing the procedure for appointing the Prosecutor General to ensure their independence.
A separate requirement concerns punishment for those guilty of corruption. Ukraine must eliminate several loopholes that currently allow corruption cases to be closed.
According to Kateryna Ryzhenko, Deputy Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine, the most urgent task is to fix provisions that allow abuse of procedural rights, particularly through delaying cases.
The EU expects Ukraine to ensure that statutes of limitations apply only until the verdict of the first-instance court.
For example, a first-instance court recently sentenced former State Fiscal Service head Roman Nasirov to six years in prison. However, the statute of limitations for his case expires in summer 2026, making it highly unlikely that the appeal will be completed before then. As a result, Nasirov may escape punishment.
There is also the issue of the so-called Lozovyi amendments, which include a rule mandating automatic closure of cases under certain circumstances.
This, however, is not the full list of European requirements in this area.