On April 24, 2024, the Verkhovna Rada approved a draft Law on Appeals, submitted by the Cabinet of Ministers, as a basis. The bill underwent significant revision before the second reading. In November 2025, the relevant parliamentary committee recommended its adoption. The version produced after the January 13, 2025, committee session is substantially stronger than earlier drafts.

The Verkhovna Rada is expected to adopt the law in the second reading in the near future. Upon entry into force, the new law will repeal the current Law on Citizens' Appeals.

The bill directly concerns Ukraine's EU integration commitments — specifically in the areas of transparency, accountability, and effective mechanisms for citizen and civil society participation in public policy. Its adoption in proper form is critical in light of European Commission recommendations set out in the 2024 and 2025 Ukraine Enlargement Reports. The draft law also aims to align with the Law on Administrative Procedure and eliminate regulatory overlap.

Brief conclusions: 

• Draft Law No. 11082 is a necessary and long-overdue step toward modernizing the appeals framework and aligning it with EU standards. It has a direct bearing on Ukraine's EU integration obligations in transparency, accountability, and civic engagement.

• The new law is needed to draw a clear boundary between the Law on Citizens' Appeals and the Law on Administrative Procedure (LAP).

• The current 1996 law is outdated and no longer meets modern standards of state-citizen interaction.

• The version prepared for the second reading contains flaws that could undermine the law's positive effect. Key recommendations for revision:

1. Bring the list of entities subject to the law in line with the Constitution
2. Drop the separate category of “complaints regarding appeals”
3. Explicitly guarantee in-person reception.

Current state of affairs 

The Law on Citizens' Appeals (1996) governs the exercise of two constitutional rights:

• the right to appeal, and
• the right to participate in the management of public affairs.

These rights are exercised through the following types of appeals:

• proposals (observations)
• applications (petitions)
• complaints
• and electronic petitions (a special category).
  

Despite formal definitions, the distinctions between types are inadequate in practice.

• An “application” currently covers fundamentally different kinds of appeal — requests to exercise a right, notifications of a legal violation, and expressions of opinion — 
• all processed under identical rules, despite their different legal nature.

The adoption of the Law on Administrative Procedure changed the landscape:

• it now governs complaint procedures,
• regulates relations between public administration bodies and individuals and legal entities, and
• introduces procedural guarantees of good administration in line with EU standards.
  

Following the LAP's adoption:

• Article 12 of the Law on Citizens' Appeals was amended to require that appeals and complaints falling within the LAP's scope be processed under LAP procedure.
• In practice, the majority of applications and complaints already fall under the LAP, creating parallel regulation.
  
  

Amendments proposed in the draft law 

• The bill repeals the 1996 Law on Citizens' Appeals and introduces an updated regulatory model for appeals, in line with contemporary approaches to state-citizen interaction.
  
• Clear delineation of scope:
  

1. The Law on Appeals — for appeals of a consultative (non-binding) nature
   
2. The Law on Administrative Procedure — for complaints and administrative matters with legal consequences.
   

• Appeals cease to be a catch-all instrument and acquire a precise, defined function.
  
• Unified processing rules for consultative-type appeals (proposals, recommendations, observations, problem notifications), with a single procedure applied across the board.
  
• Clarified scope of subject entities obliged to handle appeals — focused on public administration bodies, without automatically imposing public-law obligations on civil society organizations.
  
• Greater legal certainty for applicants regarding:
  

1. who to address
2. which procedure applies
3. and what legal consequences follow from the appeal.
   

• Removal of complaints from the appeals mechanism and their full regulation within the administrative procedure framework in line with EU standards.
  
• Updated and clarified terminology (“appeal,” “entity handling appeals”), reducing the risk of inconsistent interpretation.
  
• Institutionalization of personal reception as a core function of public authorities, with the option to delegate to authorized officials.
  
• Shift in focus from formal response to substantive engagement, supporting citizen participation in public policy.
  
• Alignment of the appeals framework with EU good governance standards — transparency, accountability, and proper administration.

Identified problems and recommendations

• Dual regulation and unclear delineation

The draft law creates a separate category of “complaints regarding the handling of appeals.” Unlike Article 16 of the current Law on Citizens' Appeals, the bill sets out no special procedure for handling such complaints. At the same time, Article 21 of the bill provides a mechanism for challenging decisions, actions, or inaction by an entity handling appeals, including challenging a response to an appeal, failure to respond, or failure to process an appeal.

The problem is that a response to an appeal is not a substantive decision. It does not affect a person's rights, freedoms, legitimate interests, or obligations — so there is nothing to appeal. The guarantees of participation in decision-making, the obligation to justify administrative acts, and the right to effective legal protection are already provided for in the Law on Administrative Procedure. A response under the Law on Appeals should therefore not be subject to challenge. These provisions should be deleted.

In substance, “complaints regarding the handling of appeals” are already subsumed within the general appeals mechanism. Treating them as a separate category is unjustified and risks confusion in practice. 

Clear delineation between the Law on Appeals (to be adopted) and the Law on Administrative Procedure (which already governs complaint procedures) is essential — for applicants, public authorities, and the legal system as a whole. The proposed provisions are not warranted and should be removed.

• List of subject entities is inconsistent with the Constitution

The draft law over-extends the range of entities obliged to handle appeals. Article 3 defines the “entity handling an appeal” as a state authority, other state body, Autonomous Republic of Crimea authority, local self-government body, their officials and civil servants, and “other entities within whose competence the issues raised fall.” 

This is inconsistent with Article 40 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which clearly defines the addressees of appeals (state authorities, local self-government bodies, and their officials and civil servants). Retaining the current wording risks:

• blurring the boundaries of public accountability 
• imposing public-law obligations on private actors without justification 
• creating legal uncertainty for applicants as to whether their appeal must be considered and what consequences follow. After all, the bill over-extends the list of entities obliged to handle appeals while leaving the category of “other entities” undefined. 

The words "other entities within whose competence the issues raised fall" should either be deleted or replaced with “other entities exercising public administration functions, providing public services, or performing other public tasks.”

• Guarantee of in-person reception

Article 40 of the Constitution of Ukraine guarantees personal reception as a form of direct appeal and an element of the constitutional right to appeal. Under Article 64(2) of the Constitution, this right may not be restricted under any circumstances. Accordingly, Article 17 of the draft law must not permit the cancellation, suspension, or effective replacement of in-person reception with other forms of communication.

Personal reception cannot be substituted. Video conference reception should be treated exclusively as an additional, voluntary option:

• available only at the request of or with the consent of the applicant, 
• without depriving them of the right to in-person reception, and 
• only where both parties have adequate technical capacity ensuring identification, confidentiality, full recording of the appeal, and equal procedural standing.

To prevent abuse and the de facto narrowing of a constitutional right, the draft law should explicitly require entities handling appeals to provide in-person reception, with remote formats available only as supplementary and voluntary alternatives for the applicant.

• The 15-day fast-track rule Article 16 of the bill reinstates the rule allowing appeals that “require no additional study” to be processed within 15 calendar days. Given the volume of appeals handled by state authorities and local self-government bodies, this provision is unnecessary and, in TI Ukraine's view, creates grounds for deferring consideration of appeals beyond 15 days rather than ensuring faster processing. 

Conclusion

TI Ukraine welcomes the advancement of Draft Law No. 11082 on Appeals as a necessary and long-overdue step toward modernizing state-citizen interaction mechanisms and aligning national legislation with EU standards. 

Adopting the new law is justified given the obsolescence of the 1996 Law on Citizens' Appeals and the need to clearly delineate its scope from the Law on Administrative Procedure — in line with European Commission recommendations on good governance, legal certainty, and effective legal protection.

At the same time, the draft prepared for the second reading contains systemic flaws that could undermine its positive potential and generate legal uncertainty in practice. In particular:

• the list of entities handling appeals must be brought in line with the Constitution
• “complaints regarding the handling of appeals” must not be defined as a separate category of appeals
• the draft law must explicitly require entities handling appeals to provide in-person reception.