Important Draft Laws. Issue 37: Competition for the Head of the Antimonopoly Committee and Creation of Military Courts

During this period, 30 draft laws were registered: two government-proposed and 28 submitted by MPs. Among them are bills on the competitive selection process for the Head of the Antimonopoly Committee and the expansion of its powers, the creation of military courts to prosecute service members for legal violations, and the increase of the subsistence minimum, minimum wages, and pensions. Lawmakers also proposed establishing financial inclusion banks, enabling Ukrposhta to provide banking services to residents of remote villages. The Cabinet of Ministers transferred a nationalized bank to Ukrposhta to facilitate this yet-to-be-adopted initiative.

Competition for the Head of the Antimonopoly Committee and changes in the Agency’s powers

Bills 12440 and 12440-1 propose changes to regulating the work of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine (AMCU) and economic competition. They would introduce additional requirements for enterprises holding a monopoly position. The key difference between these draft laws lies in the procedure for appointing the AMCU leadership. At the same time, most provisions regarding changes in the committee’s powers and competition oversight remain the same. 

Bill 12440 would retain the current procedure for appointing the head of the AMCU—by the President of Ukraine with the approval of the Verkhovna Rada. In contrast, Bill 12440-1 proposes a new selection mechanism through an open competition. A special commission would conduct the selection process, consisting of three representatives each from the President, the Verkhovna Rada, and the Cabinet of Ministers. Candidates would undergo multiple evaluation stages, including an assessment of professional experience and interviews. After the selection process, the commission would nominate two candidates, from whom the President would choose one for parliamentary approval. The draft law does not specify what would happen if the Verkhovna Rada rejects the President’s nominee. 

Other proposed bill changes pertain to expanding the AMCU’s powers to obtain information from market participants, monitor pricing, and conduct inspections.

Currently, if a company fails to provide information requested by the AMCU or submits false information, it must pay a fine (1% of its revenue plus a daily penalty for the delay). The bills propose granting the AMCU the authority to summon representatives of companies and state bodies for questioning and to demand written explanations if they may possess information or documents confirming violations of antitrust laws. Refusal to comply with such a summons would be considered a violation, resulting in a fine of 5% of the company’s business revenue, along with an additional 1% of revenue for each day of delayed submission. If a company has no revenue, the fine for refusal or providing false information would be up to UAH 136,000. Without a clearly defined methodology for calculating company revenue and setting a minimum threshold, the AMCU would gain discretionary powers, allowing it to determine fines at its discretion.

The bills propose clarifying what constitutes abuse of a dominant market position. Currently, this includes actions by companies that, in the absence of competition, harm the market—for example, setting excessively high or discriminatory prices (charging different prices to different categories of buyers), restricting production or sales markets, imposing unfavorable contract terms, creating barriers for new market entrants, or driving competitors out of the market (such practices may involve temporarily setting ultra-low prices, restricting access to critical resources, or engaging in smear campaigns). 

The bills propose defining abuse of a dominant position as actions that create unfavorable conditions for market participants, even when competition exists. This would include unjustified refusals to supply goods or provide access to infrastructure essential for business operations and could lead to restricted competition. Additionally, the legislation would introduce the concept of abuse of a stronger bargaining position. This refers to situations where a large company imposes unfavorable conditions on suppliers or partners, grants preferences to specific partners, or forces additional obligations and financial burdens on counterparties without objective justification. 

The bills introduce additional criteria for identifying artificial price inflation or underpricing cases. They specify that a sharp drop in prices below cost to drive competitors out of the market would be considered a violation. Additionally, the AMCU would gain the authority to analyze the pricing policies of monopolistic companies and require economic justification for their pricing decisions. The bills explicitly state that setting different prices or conditions in equivalent transactions without objective economic justification would constitute an abuse of a dominant position. This would allow the AMCU to demand explanations and assess whether there is a legitimate economic basis for specific price levels. 

While the bills do not establish precise requirements for how price justifications should be structured, AMCU officials, under existing law, would be able to collect and analyze evidence to determine the circumstances of a case. This could involve gathering information on production costs, operational expenses, logistics, marketing, and other price components. They would also be able to question producers, suppliers, and consumers. If a company is found to be inflating or lowering prices without proper economic grounds, it could face fines of up to 10% of its business revenue. If the illegal profit exceeds 10% of the company’s revenue, the fine could be up to three times the amount of the unlawful profit. 

The bills also establish new rules for conducting inspections. The AMCU can only conduct inspections based on a court decision or when clear signs of a violation exist. However, the proposed changes would allow for unannounced inspections without prior notice. The AMCU would also be authorized to seize documents, electronic data, and other materials if there is reason to believe a company is attempting to conceal a violation.

These bills create risks for businesses due to stricter price controls and the possibility of sudden inspections. Classifying a price as “unjustified” may not always be warranted. For instance, a company might temporarily set low prices as a marketing strategy—to enter a new market or encourage consumers to try a new product. If these bills are enacted, the AMCU would not only have the power to impose fines for such actions but could also effectively suspend a company’s operations.

Ukraine plans to restore military courts

Bills 13008 and 13009 propose reinstating military courts, abolished in 2010, to handle criminal and administrative cases related to military service, discipline, and law enforcement within the armed forces. 

Garrison military courts would have jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by military personnel, including desertion, insubordination, failure to obey orders, unauthorized departure from duty, espionage, violations of service regulations, breaches of military discipline (military statute), and abuse of power. These courts would also handle cases related to violations of the laws of war, such as attacks on civilians, the use of prohibited weapons, destruction of medical and humanitarian facilities, and mistreatment of prisoners of war. Additionally, military courts would have jurisdiction over cases involving breaches of state secrets within the army and administrative disputes where one of the parties is a service member or a military command authority. 

Appellate military courts would review decisions made by garrison military courts. Additionally, a special chamber within the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court would be established to handle cassation appeals in military cases. 

Only specialists with experience in criminal justice would be eligible to serve as military court judges. They must undergo specialized training, including military law, discipline, and operational tactics, to qualify. Military court judges would also be granted military ranks, starting from Junior Lieutenant of Justice. 

Changes to the definition of illegal border crossing

Currently, the Criminal Code stipulates a penalty of 3 to 9 years for illegally transporting individuals across the state border. Bill 13014 specifies three distinct scenarios that would qualify as illegal border crossing: transporting a person across the border outside official checkpoints, crossing through an official checkpoint without the required documents, and moving a person through an official checkpoint in a way that bypasses border control (e.g., by hiding them in a vehicle). A more precise definition of illegal border crossing would help prevent ambiguous interpretations of the law.

Parliament proposes a significant increase in the minimum wage, pensions, and living standards for 2025 

Bill 12462 proposes a substantial increase in minimum social standards in 2025. Under the current State Budget, the minimum subsistence level per person is set at UAH 2,920 as of January 1, 2025. However, the bill proposes raising it to UAH 4,710 in April, UAH 6,645 in July, and UAH 9,761 in October. 

• The general minimum subsistence level (UAH 2,920 in 2025) applies to the entire population and serves as a baseline indicator for assessing the standard of living. It forms the foundation for social policies and the development of state social programs. 
• The minimum subsistence level of UAH 2,563 for children under 6 covers essential expenses such as food, clothing, medicine, and early childhood development. 
• Minimum subsistence level of UAH 3,196 for children aged 6 to 18 years accounts for education, food, clothing, and other basic expenses for school-age children. 
• Minimum subsistence level of UAH 3,028 for working-age individuals represents the minimum income required for a basic standard of living and work. It is also used to calculate minimum wages and taxes.
• A minimum subsistence level of UAH 2,361 applies to pensioners and other non-working citizens who have lost the ability to work. This covers essential needs such as medicine, food, and care.
• Additionally, various subsistence minimum values are applied to specific cases:

• The rate of UAH 2,102 for working-age individuals helps determine the base salary of judges, customs officers, and other government employees whose wages are regulated by special laws. 
• The rate of UAH 1,600 is used to set the salary for district prosecutors. 
• The rate of UAH 1,600 for individuals who have lost the ability to work is used to calculate additional compensation for those living in areas affected by radioactive contamination.

The bill proposes increasing the minimum subsistence level for working-age individuals from UAH 3,028 in January to UAH 11,184 in October. For individuals who have lost the ability to work, the increase would be from UAH 2,361 in January to UAH 7,056 in October, which would also become the minimum pension. 

The bill also proposes raising the minimum wage from the current UAH 8,000 to UAH 11,184 in October. The bill’s authors suggest financing these increases through additional budget revenues, particularly by combating tax evasion, attracting international aid, and reducing government debt servicing costs. According to the bill’s estimates, these measures would require approximately UAH 299.9 billion (or 12.9% of the projected budget revenue for 2025). Undoubtedly, the IMF and Ukraine’s European partners will not support this bill. 

New rules for summoning officials to the Verkhovna Rada

The Verkhovna Rada has the authority to officially invite or summon any public official or civil servant, except for the President of Ukraine and judges, to its plenary sessions. Bill 13012 establishes a list of valid reasons for an official’s absence, including business trips, temporary incapacity, leave, or documented transportation issues. The presiding officer at the session would inform MPs about the presence of summoned officials or the reasons for their absence. However, regardless of the reason for non-attendance, the bill does not impose any liability for failing to appear. 

The bill also regulates speech and questioning procedures. Officials would be given up to 5 minutes for their speech. Each parliamentary faction would have the guaranteed right to ask one brief and precise question, which must be answered clearly and concisely. The total time for such questions and answers must not exceed 15 minutes. Additionally, up to 15 minutes would be allocated for questions from all MPs.