Important Draft Laws. Issue 56: A Risky Payments Registry, Small Nuclear Reactors, and Rules for Floating Homes

If adopted, these proposals would establish a new state registry of individuals whose payment operations are deemed high-risk. Banks and payment services would be required to scrutinize such clients more closely and automatically apply limits to their transactions. Other proposals concern the enforcement of court decisions. Private bailiffs may be authorized to handle cases involving debtors who are the state. All state debts arising from court rulings would be consolidated into a single registry, allowing the Ministry of Finance to plan the budget more accurately. A separate initiative updates railway safety rules, bringing Ukraine’s infrastructure closer to European standards. The government proposes introducing new regulations for small modular nuclear reactors, along with a dedicated procedure for their construction and operation. Another draft law defines the legal status of floating homes. It establishes requirements for their registration, technical safety, and waste management.

Creation of a registry of individuals whose payment operations require enhanced monitoring

Bill No. 14161 proposes creating a new state registry of individuals whose payment operations require enhanced monitoring. The National Bank of Ukraine would maintain it. Banks, postal operators, and other payment service providers (non-bank institutions, such as online transfer systems, financial companies, and payment services) would enter information into this registry about individuals and entrepreneurs whose financial operations indicate potential violations of payment legislation.

Such institutions would be required to screen their clients as part of their payment monitoring process. They would analyze the transactions a client carries out through accounts or terminals and compare them with the client’s official information. For example, if an individual is not permitted to share their card or e-wallet with another person, yet the payment provider detects that someone else is accessing the account (for instance, through a login from a new device or regular payments from new IP addresses), this may indicate that the account has been transferred to a third party. Such a situation would be grounds for adding the client to the registry.

Another case would be when an entrepreneur or company accepts payments for goods or services that do not match the activity specified in their agreement with the bank or acquirer (the bank or another institution servicing payment terminals). For example, the contract may state that an entrepreneur sells books, but in reality, the terminal is used to withdraw cash or to sell other goods such as alcohol. This would be determined through an analysis of payment transactions, types of purchases, complaints, or inspections. In such a situation, the payment provider would have to add this entrepreneur to the registry.

Banks would apply restrictions to individuals who are entered into the registry. For individuals, these would include limits on the amounts or number of payment operations (such as transfers), as well as limits on the number of cards, accounts, or e-wallets a person can hold with a single institution. For entrepreneurs or companies, the volume of payments accepted through payment terminals could be restricted. The National Bank would set such limits, and they would be mandatory.

Before beginning service, opening an account, logging in from a new device, changing a client’s data, or updating their activity code, a payment provider must verify whether the person is in the registry. If they are, the restrictions would apply automatically. The period during which a person would remain in the registry would be no longer than 24 months from the date of the most recent entry. After the 24 months end, the restrictions would cease to apply. However, the information about the person would remain in the registry for three years from the date of the last entry, unless it is removed at the person’s request or due to an identified error.

The bill does not require mandatory notification to a person or business about being added to the registry. They can learn about this only after a bank or other institution applies restrictions to them, or by submitting a request on their own. If it turns out that the information was entered by mistake, the person or business could apply to the payment provider or the National Bank. If the error is confirmed, the data will be removed or corrected. If the mistake is not acknowledged, the individual or entrepreneur would have the right to challenge the institution’s actions in court.

New rules for enforcing court decisions against the state and the creation of a unified registry of state debts

Currently, court decisions involving the debtor as the state or state institutions are enforced only by state bailiffs. Private bailiffs are not authorized to take on such cases. As a result, many decisions remain unenforced due to the extremely high workload on state bailiffs. In addition, funds for enforcing court decisions against the state are allocated through a separate budget program. The funding for this program is limited each year, while the total amount of such decisions is much larger. As a result, some decisions remain unenforced during the current year and carry over into the next. During the first six months, the state attempts to enforce decisions using the funds of the specific institution concerned. If that institution lacks the necessary funds, the decision is added to the budget program and awaits financing. For example, the draft State Budget for 2025 allocates UAH 100 million under the Ministry of Social Policy’s budget program 2501290, “Ensuring the enforcement of court decisions.” At the same time, Ukraine records about 768,000 unenforced court decisions related to social payments, which would require UAH 85.6 billion to fulfill. Thus, the demand for financing far exceeds the budget’s capacity. Current legislation does not include a unified registry of state debts arising from court decisions, nor does it require the transfer of complete information about such debts to the Ministry of Finance. Data on unenforced decisions are held by different entities, including state and private bailiffs, the treasury, and budget administrators. Bill No. 14163 proposes consolidating this information in a single registry and transmitting it to the Ministry of Finance so it can plan budget funds for enforcing court decisions.

Bill No. 14162 proposes allowing private bailiffs to work on cases involving debtors who are the state or state institutions. If a decision is enforced at the expense of the state budget, the enforcement fee would not be charged to avoid increasing the amount of the debt. If a state institution has neither funds nor property that can be seized, the state would be required to pay the debt immediately, without waiting for the six-month period.

Bill No. 14163 would amend the Budget Code. It introduces a new principle: the state would be obligated to fully and promptly enforce decisions of national and international courts if the debt is to be paid from the state budget. To this end, a unified registry of all state debts arising from court decisions would be created. The Ministry of Finance would use this data when preparing the budget to allocate the necessary funds. If the state pays a debt on behalf of a state-owned enterprise, that amount would be considered a debt of the enterprise to the state and would be recovered by the state later. The remuneration of private bailiffs for cases against the state is proposed to be paid from the state budget so that the bailiff is not dependent on the debtor.

New grounds for recusing a state or private bailiff

Bailiffs are officials responsible for the compulsory enforcement of decisions. Suppose a debtor does not voluntarily comply with a court decision. In that case, the bailiff has the authority to seize property, deduct funds from an account, or evict someone from a residence—all in accordance with the enforcement document (a court decision, a notarial writ of execution when the debtor has acknowledged the debt, rulings of the tax service or local authorities, decisions of dispute commissions, and so on). In Ukraine, these powers are held by both state and private bailiffs.

The parties to enforcement proceedings—the debtor or the claimant—may file a motion with the court requesting the recusal of a bailiff. This is a request to replace the bailiff if there are grounds to believe that the bailiff cannot objectively enforce the decision. Currently, a bailiff may be recused if they are related to one of the parties, work with any of them, have a conflict of interest, or, in the case of a private bailiff, are handling so many cases that the total amount of claims exceeds their insurance coverage. Such insurance is a mandatory legal requirement. A private bailiff must have a civil liability insurance contract to practice. If they are already handling many cases and the total amount exceeds the insured limit, they are not allowed to take new cases. In such a situation, the other party may request the recusal of the judge.

However, if a bailiff simply does nothing or violates enforcement procedures—for example, fails to seize property, does not send notices, or does not carry out other mandatory actions—the current Law “On Enforcement Proceedings” does not allow for their removal.

Bill No. 14182 proposes expanding the list of grounds for recusal. If a bailiff fails to perform actions directly required by law or as specified in the enforcement document, the other party would be able to apply to the court to have the bailiff replaced. For example, if a court has ordered the recovery of funds and the bailiff delays seizing the accounts without a valid reason, this would constitute grounds for their recusal.

New law on safety and interoperability rules for the railway

The government is proposing a new law (Bill No. 14174) that would establish rules for the entire railway sector in Ukraine. It is not about changing fares or schedules, but about the principles governing how the system operates: who is responsible for safety, the conditions for access to infrastructure, how the technical condition of trains is inspected, and what should be done in the event of an accident.

Some of the requirements in the bill are not new: for example, to transport freight or passengers, a company already must have a license, functioning locomotives, and trained personnel. But these rules are scattered across different laws and regulations. The bill brings them together in a single document, clearly outlines the requirements, and introduces new tools that are not currently in use. It would introduce two documents for train drivers—a certificate of competence (confirming education, medical fitness, and basic knowledge) and a driving license (granting the right to operate a specific type of train on certain routes).

Each company that manages, tracks, or transports passengers and freight would be required to create and implement a safety management system. This means it would have to document its internal procedures, including how it identifies and assesses risks, authorizes employees to work, and maintains equipment in proper condition. Previously, similar requirements were formulated by state authorities as general provisions in the Law “On Railway Transport” and in numerous regulations—safety rules, instructions, provisions—but now these requirements are set out at the level of the law. Moreover, the bill would require every operator to have a documented system and undergo an official inspection to obtain a safety certificate or an authorization certificate.

The bill introduces a requirement to maintain registries—unified state databases containing all information about trains, tracks, train drivers, and training centers. Such registries do not currently exist, and this complicates oversight. The bill would also introduce mandatory risk assessments: companies would have to identify potential hazards in their operations and take action before any incidents occur, while the State Service of Ukraine for Transport Safety (Ukrtransbezpeka) would verify whether these assessments have been conducted properly.

Another critical aspect of the bill is interoperability, meaning the ability of the Ukrainian railway to operate together with the European network—to have compatible infrastructure, standards, signals, and trains. To achieve this, the bill outlines technical requirements for all elements of the railway system, establishes rules for authorizing new trains and wagons for operation, and sets criteria for modifying existing systems. This approach would allow Ukraine’s railway to integrate into the European transport network.

Additionally, the bill establishes rules for industrial sidings—railway branches that lead to factories, warehouses, and ports. If locomotives operating on these branches also enter the public tracks, the owners of such branches would be required to obtain an authorization certificate, establish a safety system, and comply with requirements for personnel and the technical condition of the infrastructure. Currently, some technical specifications for industrial sidings are set out in regulations, including the Railway Technical Operation Rules and the Rules for Maintaining Railway Sidings. However, these orders do not cover all issues of safety, certification, oversight, and access that the bill proposes to make mandatory at the legislative level.

Possibility of using small modular nuclear reactors in Ukraine

Currently, nuclear power plants in Ukraine are considered national facilities of significance. The Verkhovna Rada determines where they may be built, and only state organizations are permitted to operate them. The fuel for such facilities belongs to the state, and the legislation does not contain separate rules for small nuclear reactors.

Bill No. 14164 proposes introducing a new concept—the small modular reactor. This is a compact nuclear reactor manufactured at a plant as a standalone module that is installed on-site. Such a reactor has a capacity of up to 300 megawatts and can operate at partial power—for example, at 20% of its full capacity. If a power plant or heat plant uses only such reactors, it would no longer be considered a facility of national significance. In that case, the Verkhovna Rada would not participate in the decision to build it. Instead, the owner or investor would submit a proposal to the Cabinet of Ministers, which would make the decision.

The bill would allow private companies to own fuel for small reactors. Owners of such plants would be able to choose the operator of the installation and enter into a contract with that organization specifying who owns the electricity or heat produced.

If a plant with small modular reactors is built not from scratch but by reconstructing an existing facility, it could be put into operation earlier than the accompanying buildings, for example, administrative premises or warehouses. But this would be possible only under three conditions. First, small modular reactors must not have been used at this facility before. Second, the reconstruction plan must ensure that the new installation can utilize existing production or utility buildings. Third, these auxiliary buildings must be put into operation before construction of the nuclear reactor begins.

The bill states that the owner of a plant operating exclusively on small modular reactors would be allowed to decide when to shut it down. They would have to notify the state nuclear safety authority at least five years before the facility’s closure.

Legal status of floating homes and liability for violating environmental requirements

Ukraine currently lacks a separate law defining what constitutes a floating home, the requirements applicable to it, and the procedures for its registration and operation. In the Classification and Construction Rules of Vessels of the Shipping Register of Ukraine, they are mentioned as floating cottages—vessels intended for living or recreation. If such a structure has an engine or is registered as a vessel, it partially falls under the Water Code and the Law “On Inland Water Transport.” But even in that case, it cannot be registered as real estate, cannot receive a postal address, and cannot be used to register a place of residence. As a result, such structures remain outside legal regulation, and the state has no mechanisms to exercise oversight over them. There is also no administrative liability for dumping garbage or discharging waste from such structures into bodies of water.

Bill No. 14185 defines a floating home as a standalone structure on water intended for living. The owner would be required to register such a home in the Register of Floating Homes of Ukraine. Registration would be carried out by the district state administration in whose jurisdiction the first mooring location chosen by the applicant is situated, and the register would be maintained by the Ministry for Communities and Territories Development. After verifying compliance with the new law’s requirements, the home would be assigned an individual registration number, which would be marked on the hull. The owner would receive a certificate of ownership.

The bill sets requirements for technical condition, safety, and engineering systems. A floating home would need to have a watertight hull, a system for securing it to a platform, sufficient stability on the water, signal lights, firefighting equipment, lifesaving devices, evacuation ladders, and a functioning GPS tracker. It would need to be equipped with sources of electricity—such as shore power, generators, or solar panels—a heating system ensuring a minimum temperature of +16°C in winter, potable water supplies, a sewage system with a septic tank, and containers for waste. A technical inspection of a floating home would have to take place at least once every three years with the participation of the authorized transport authority (the State Service for Maritime and River Transport), which would record the inspection results in the state register.

Local self-government bodies would designate mooring locations, conclude lease agreements with owners, and establish marinas—specialized berths equipped with technical and engineering infrastructure. A marina is a fitted-out dock or harbor with an electricity supply, sewer connections, a septic pump-out station, waste containers, and the ability to register a residential address. Such sites would provide utility, postal, technical, and administrative services for floating homes.

The bill would allow a person to register their place of residence in a registered floating home, provided that a mooring contract, an address, and sufficient living space—at least 13.65 sq m per person—are available. The owner would be required to keep the home in proper technical condition, refrain from dumping garbage or discharging waste into the water, comply with safety rules, avoid excessive noise, and pay rent for the mooring.

Bill No. 14190 would supplement the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses with a new article. Dumping garbage or discharging liquid waste from a floating home in prohibited areas would be punishable by a fine of UAH 17,000. A repeated violation within a year would carry a fine of UAH 170,000 and the confiscation of the floating home, if it belongs to the offender.

Benefits for importing goods for defense production would extend to modernization.

During martial law, enterprises that manufacture or repair drones, electronic warfare equipment, demining machines, and ammunition may import necessary components without paying customs duties or VAT. An enterprise must submit a quarterly report to the customs service, listing the goods it imported and how it used them exactly. Without such a report, the enterprise cannot continue importing goods under the preferential regime.

Bills Nos. 14169 and 14170 would allow imported goods to be used not only for production and repair but also for modernization. For example, if an enterprise previously manufactured a drone and handed it over to the Armed Forces, and later received that drone back for upgrading, it could import new components for this purpose tax-free. The reports would also have to specify how much equipment was modernized, not only produced or repaired. The list of situations in which an enterprise would not lose its right to benefits would also be expanded—for instance, if goods deteriorated, were definitively rejected, or were destroyed during testing, provided this is documented.