How can Ukraine make tangible progress in anti-corruption and receive EU's green light?

Ukraine improved its score in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) by one point in 2025. This index reflects not the actual volume of corruption, but how corruption is perceived by society.

Ukraine’s main problem today is not so much corruption itself as the sense of stagnation and impunity. Society is tired of "processes" and people now want "results."

Read more about how Ukraine can achieve meaningful and visible progress in anti-corruption and secure the EU’s green light in the article by Yuliia Sukharevska of Transparency International Ukraine: How to change the perception of "Ukrainian corruption".

Kyiv needs only to implement, or at least advance in implementing, a short roadmap defined by the European Commission itself to achieve substantial progress in anti-corruption. This document is known as the "Kachka-Kos 10 Points," named after the officials who signed it.

In reality, however, the list contains significantly more than ten points.

For example, the first point could easily be divided into four separate ones, as it covers investigation time limits, statutes of limitation, countering procedural delays, jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and other issues.

The classic approach would be to adopt separate laws for each of these matters, but it would be better to consolidate them into a single law. All elements of the first point could be combined into comprehensive amendments to Ukraine’s Criminal Procedure Code (CPC).

The office of Deputy Prime Minister Taras Kachka chose this very path and decided to focus on these amendments to the CPC as the most substantial part of the document.

What exactly needs to be changed?

First, mechanisms are needed to counter the abuse of procedural rights. Courts should be given tools to respond to bad-faith behaviour by participants in proceedings, for example, deliberately prolonging courtroom speeches (as in the cases of Nasirov and Chaus), or unjustified failure to appear at hearings.

In addition, a problematic provision remains in Ukraine’s CPC that allows for the automatic closure of criminal proceedings if the pre-trial investigation time limit is exceeded. This is often, though not entirely accurately, referred to as the "Lozovyi amendments."

Another issue concerns statutes of limitation, particularly when their calculation is suspended, interrupted or stopped. Notably, there is no clear "European standard" on this matter.

"The draft EU Directive states that the minimum statute of limitations should range from eight to fifteen years, depending on the severity of the offense," says Pavlo Demchuk, Senior Legal Advisor at Transparency International Ukraine.

In Ukraine, where the time limits are often several times shorter, the need for correction is urgent. "At the same time, effective investigative and judicial work to ensure reasonable timeframes for pre-trial investigations and court proceedings is no less important," the expert emphasises.

Ukraine also urgently needs to simplify and accelerate procedural processes by introducing written proceedings in certain cases, reducing the grounds for panel hearings and eliminating excessive formalities such as the mandatory participation of witnesses to procedural actions.

For example, cases involving members of parliament accused of false asset declarations (a non-serious crime) currently must be heard by a panel of three judges, consuming significant human resources.

As a third reform direction, TI Ukraine proposes strengthening the capacity of anti-corruption bodies by clarifying NABU’s jurisdiction, granting additional powers to the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO), and ensuring better coordination between institutions, including with the Asset Recovery and Management Agency (ARMA) in managing seized assets.

Taken together, these seemingly "minor" issues undermine the effectiveness of NABU and SAPO.