The Rada backed sweeping changes to the prosecution service: who will be vetted, how leaders will be appointed, and what will be punished

On November 11, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted at first reading the government bill No. 16144, which provides for changes to the system of governance of prosecution authorities, the evaluation of prosecutors’ performance, the appointment of managers, and bringing prosecution service employees to disciplinary liability. The document was supported by 236 members of parliament; not a single one pressed the red button. 

How the bill introduces new procedures for monitoring prosecutors’ work and appointing managers, and why it simultaneously raises questions about the independence of those who will conduct the checks and competitions, is explained by UNN. 

What path the document has taken and who its author is

On October 12, Prime Minister Serhii Koretskyi submitted the document to parliament. It did not reach the vote immediately: on November 10, lawmakers were eight votes short of including the bill on the agenda. At that time, 218 members of parliament pressed the green button, while 226 votes were required. On November 11, parliament returned to its consideration and adopted the bill in principle.

It is currently known that the document has European integration status. According to the Verkhovna Rada, its development is connected with the fulfillment of Ukraine’s commitments in the process of European integration.

What changes the bill on improving the organizational foundations of prosecution service activities proposes

The bill’s chief architect proposes reforming three main areas:

• the personnel system of the prosecution service (evaluating prosecutors’ effectiveness and appointing managers);
• prosecutorial self-government (primarily, the activities of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine);
• the disciplinary system (grounds for liability, the procedure for considering complaints, and types of sanctions).

In addition to the Law of Ukraine "On the Public Prosecutor’s Office," the bill provides for amendments to the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine and the laws "On Preventing Corruption," "On the Bar and Practice of Law," and "On Civil Service."

How the evaluation of prosecutors’ work will change

One of the key innovations concerns the regular evaluation of prosecution service employees’ professional performance. The document provides for a transition to a system of regular assessments of prosecutors’ professional qualities. 

In particular, it concerns evaluating the quality of prosecutors’ work once every three years and conducting an annual integrity check. In the event of a negative evaluation, the bill’s author proposes sending the prosecutor for professional development followed by a repeat evaluation. 

Special commissions will be formed to conduct the relevant procedures. It should be noted that a negative evaluation result does not entail automatic dismissal from office. 

New rules for appointing heads of prosecutor’s offices: what they will be

The bill provides for competitive selection for administrative positions in the Office of the Prosecutor General, regional, and district prosecutor’s offices.

The main stages of the procedure:

• announcement of a competition for a vacant position;
• submission of documents by candidates;
• assessment of professional competence and integrity;
• conducting interviews;
• determining the results and submitting recommendations to the head of the relevant prosecutor’s office.

Depending on the position, the selection will be carried out by the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine or special commissions.

Such commissions will consist of seven people: six prosecutors holding administrative positions in the relevant prosecution authority and one representative of the Council of Prosecutors. Based on the results of the competition, the head will be offered at least two candidates for each vacant position.

A significant change also concerns 2025 legislation. The document repeals the provision of Law No. 4555-IX of July 22, 2025, which allowed certain transfers of prosecutors to higher-level prosecutor’s offices without a competitive procedure. This means the return of the competitive mechanism for the relevant personnel appointments.

They want to make the Council of Prosecutors more independent: will the new bill help with this?

The Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine already exists, but the bill’s author proposes changing the organizational foundations of its activities. The main innovation is the creation of its own secretariat under the Council’s control, as well as an expansion of its powers.

Koretskyi proposes that Council members work on a full-time basis while retaining the positions they held previously for the duration of their respective duties.

At present, the Council’s organizational dependence on the Office of the Prosecutor General is manifested, in particular, in its use of the Office’s document-management infrastructure. Establishing its own staff should organizationally separate the activities of the Council of Prosecutors from the Office of the Prosecutor General.

Ukraine will establish an Ethical Standards Council: what will it do 

If the bill passes its second reading, receives the required number of votes, and is personally signed by the President of Ukraine, the country will have an Ethical Standards Council to assess the professional competence and integrity of candidates for the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine and the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors.

The Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine (4 people), the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors (one person), and the Congress of Advocates of Ukraine  (one person) will delegate their representatives to it. A representative of higher legal education institutions and research institutions will also be appointed to the Ethical Standards Council. 

A two-year transitional period is also предусмотрено. During this period, the Ethical Standards Council is to consist of six members: three prosecutors designated by the Council of Prosecutors, and one representative each designated by the Council of Judges, the Presidium of the National Academy of Legal Sciences, and the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights. During the transitional period, the Office of the Prosecutor General will be responsible for the organizational and technical support of the new body.

Disciplinary liability of prosecutors: how it will be reformed

The bill provides for significant changes to the procedure for holding prosecutors disciplinarily liable.

The period for bringing disciplinary proceedings is proposed to be extended from one year to three years. At the same time, periods of leave, temporary incapacity for work, and suspension of disciplinary proceedings will not be included in the relevant period.

In addition, the bill addresses:

• legislative clarification of the definition of a disciplinary offense;
• specification of the grounds for holding someone liable;
• expansion of the list of disciplinary sanctions;
• improvement of the organizational work of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors (QDCP);
• establishment of requirements for the content of disciplinary complaints;
• clarification of the grounds for refusing to open disciplinary proceedings.

Particular attention should be paid to the provision on returning a complaint to the complainant. The draft provides for the possibility of leaving a complaint without consideration if it contains statements in an explicitly obscene form or wording that degrades the honor and dignity of any person. Such a decision by a QDCP member will not be subject to appeal. Human rights experts from the organization already consider this provision potentially problematic, since the concept of degrading honor and dignity may allow for broad interpretation and create additional obstacles to filing complaints.

Why the bill came under criticism

Despite the document’s pro-European integration orientation, anti-corruption organizations have raised questions about the proposed reform model.

On November 10, Olena Shcherban, Deputy Executive Director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center (ANTAC), published a column in "Ukrainska Pravda" criticizing the bill. In her view, the bill does not ensure the independent cleansing of the prosecution service, since personnel procedures largely remain under the control of representatives of the system itself.

Among her comments on the document, she listed the following:

• it does not provide for a new general re-certification of prosecutors;
• there is no independent competition for the position of Prosecutor General;
• the competition commissions are formed mainly from incumbent heads of prosecutor’s offices;
• in the permanent composition of the Ethical Standards Council, the majority will be representatives delegated by the Council of Prosecutors;
• no mechanism is introduced for appointing the leadership of the prosecution service with the decisive participation of independent external experts.

The risks were also highlighted by the NGO "Mezha," which on October 15 published a detailed legal analysis of the bill. The first is that the proposed composition of the Council of Ethical Standards may not ensure sufficiently independent vetting of candidates. In addition, the text does not set out in sufficient detail guarantees for the transparency of competitions, including the openness of commission meetings, publication of decisions, and justification of selection results.

Third, the requirement to recommend at least two candidates for a vacant position could create difficulties if only one applicant successfully passes the competition. Fourth, the experts noted that the draft does not eliminate certain powers of the Prosecutor General to request materials from criminal proceedings, which, in their view, pose risks to the procedural independence of prosecutors.

The organization believes that the document requires further work to more fully fulfill European integration commitments.

To recap

At the beginning of November, Acting Prosecutor General Kovalskyi explained what changes he was preparing for prosecution authorities. He announced the automated allocation of proceedings, taking into account prosecutors’ experience, specialization, and workload.