Important Draft Laws. Issue 48: Resuming Civil Service Competitions, New Educational App “Mriia,” and Ban on Russian Software

Resuming civil service competitions

During martial law, appointments to civil service and local self-government bodies (LSGs) occur without a competitive process. Candidates apply and submit documents about themselves, their education, experience, and a candidate declaration (which includes information about their property, income, expenses, and liabilities for the previous year). After that, the heads of the government body or LSG may appoint them to a position without assessing professional competence—that is, without the formal evaluation process based on established criteria (such as completing situational tasks) that selection commissions usually conduct during open competitions. In addition, officials appointed during martial law may not be transferred to other positions (the law prohibits transfers without dismissal, though it does not exclude the possibility of dismissal and subsequent appointment to a different position).

Bill No. 13478-1 seeks to gradually reinstate the competition process for all civil service categories and local self-government positions. The first competitions for category “A” positions (heads of agencies and their deputies) would have to be announced by government bodies between June 1, 2026, and March 1, 2027; for category “B” (department and division heads and their deputies)—within a year starting July 1, 2026; and for category “C” (chief, leading, and senior specialists, inspectors, consultants)—between September 1, 2026, and December 31, 2027.

Competitions for positions in local self-government bodies would also resume starting June 1, 2026. Suppose a civil servant is appointed without a competition after this draft bill is adopted. In that case, the maximum term they would be allowed to remain in the position is: 18 months for categories “A” and “B,” and 24 months for category “C” and local self-government bodies. An exception would apply to territories where active hostilities are ongoing—no competitions would be held until the fighting ends.

As is currently the case, competitions for category “A” civil service positions would be conducted by the Senior Civil Service Commission, with the involvement of the head and HR officer of the government body with the vacancy, a specialist in public administration, and a representative of civil society organizations—the selection procedure for the latter would have to be approved by the government. The draft law proposes including up to two sector-specific experts in the relevant field, heads of structural units (departments, directorates, divisions) where the candidate is applying, and an additional representative from a relevant civil society organization. Political appointees would not be allowed to join the Commission, and the required work experience for candidates would be reduced from 10 to 5 years.

A new feature introduced in the draft bill is the internal competition—a simplified procedure that a government body could use to fill vacant category “B” and “C” positions exclusively among its staff. These competitions could be held when there is a need to quickly appoint someone who already works in the institution to an equivalent or higher-level position. The internal competition would include the same stages as an open competition, but participation would be restricted, and no announcement would be published on the national public service portal.

The bill also proposes to establish personnel and candidate pools legally. The personnel pool (currently used on an experimental basis for candidates to work in de-occupied territories and planned postwar for LSGs) would be formed from civil servants who received an “excellent” rating during their annual performance evaluation. Within one year of receiving such a rating, the civil servant could be transferred to a higher position within the same category (for example, from deputy head of a division to head of the division, or from deputy director of a department to a director-level position within category “B”) without undergoing a competition. This would enable internal career growth based on merit and professional performance.

The candidate pool would include individuals who passed a competition (for example, the top 3–5 scoring candidates) but were not appointed to the position. Within a year of passing the competition, such candidates could be appointed to a similar position without repeating the competition. This would help reduce the time required to fill vacancies in government agencies.

Restrictions on travel abroad for former ministers during martial law

Bill No. 13484 proposes restricting former ministers from leaving the country during martial law for one year after leaving office. An exception would allow travel abroad for official business trips, but only with prior approval from the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

The bill’s authors justify the initiative to prevent former officials from leaving the country after dismissal. However, under current rules, the reservation status (i.e., deferral from mobilization) for category “A” civil servants, including ministers, is governed by Cabinet Resolution No. 76. A minister loses this reservation upon dismissal. At the same time, existing legislation already restricts the right to travel abroad for military-age men, including former ministers.

Therefore, the proposed provision would not change the current requirements: a dismissed minister cannot travel abroad. The draft bill introduces no new restrictions and does not address the issue of potentially unlawful departures, which can only arise from violations of existing rules.

Cooperation between companies and sole proprietors may be considered hidden employment

The Labor Code does not recognize cooperation between companies or organizations and sole proprietors (FOPs) as employment. This means that FOPs are not entitled to workplace provisions, paid leave, or sick pay—all such terms are defined in the contract between the parties. Bill No. 13507 proposes establishing nine criteria for determining the nature of the relationship between a legal entity and an FOP. A court may recognize such contractual relations as employment if seven or more of these criteria are present.

• The individual performs the work personally, without the ability to delegate it or hire assistants.
• They work under direct instructions from the client and are under the client’s control in terms of content and schedule. 
• The client sets the work schedule, rules, duties, and chain of command. 
• The contractor is effectively integrated into the company’s structure—for example, having internal responsibilities, access to company communications, participating in meetings, or representing the company externally. 
• Payment is made regularly (e.g., monthly), regardless of performance, and at least 80% of the person’s income over two years comes from the same client. (For example, if a person earned UAH 500,000 over two years and at least UAH 400,000 came from one client, this would be a sign of employment. Monthly amounts do not matter; only the total sum over 24 months and the regularity of payments are considered.)
• The client covers the contractor’s expenses, such as fuel or phone costs. 
• The worker effectively receives vacations or other social benefits.
• The client provides tools, equipment, or materials for the work.
• The client pays for the contractor’s training.

If a court finds that an employment relationship exists (based on seven out of the nine criteria), the client must pay a fine equal to ten times the minimum wage (currently UAH 80,000). This corresponds to the penalty for employing a worker without a formal employment contract, concealing full-time work, or paying wages without taxes and contributions. The first violation would result in a warning for FOPs and legal entities under the simplified tax system (groups 1–3). If the violation is repeated within two years, the client would face a fine of UAH 240,000.

Ban on software and equipment linked to aggressor states

Bill No. 13505 proposes banning the use in Ukraine of software products (any software, operating systems, applications, including websites, services, and access codes) and informatics tools (computers, networks, and equipment used for information and communication technologies) originating from hostile countries.

The draft law sets out criteria for identifying software or equipment as hostile. One such criterion is if the author, owner, distributor, or ultimate beneficiary is a citizen of an aggressor state or another country recognized by Ukraine as an aggressor or occupier (currently only the Russian Federation has been identified as an aggressor by the Verkhovna Rada, although a parliamentary resolution to recognize Belarus as an aggressor is registered but not yet passed). Other criteria include affiliation with countries in military or customs alliances with Russia—such as the CSTO or EAEU (e.g., Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan)—or if the individuals or relevant companies are subject to Ukrainian sanctions (currently, over 20,000 companies from more than 90 countries are under sanctions).

Products listed in the public registry of prohibited software and equipment would also be considered hostile. For example, Ukraine has already imposed sanctions on several software products (“Kaspersky Lab,” “Dr.Web,” “1C,” “Bitrix24”) and web platforms (“Odnoklassniki,” “Mail.ru,” “Yandex,” “VK”), as well as on those operated in practice (i.e., where individuals have access to accounts, servers, or the ability to modify or administer content) by persons from aggressor states or temporarily occupied territories.

The Cabinet of Ministers would approve official lists of such software and equipment, and the State Service of Special Communications and Information Protection would maintain their records. A complete ban on using and selling hostile software and equipment would occur on January 1, 2030. By then, government bodies, enterprises, and other entities would be required to stop using such tools and transition to alternative solutions (incidentally, Opendatabot and Netpeak maintain a list of Russian-origin software and suggest alternative options).

Starting 180 days after the publication of the government-approved list, businesses (sellers and distributors) would be fined 2% of their annual turnover for selling, using, or distributing (including free transfers or providing access to) prohibited software. The fine would not be less than the revenue earned from selling the banned software and equipment.

Currently, similar issues are partially regulated by the Law of Ukraine “On the Basic Principles of Cybersecurity of Ukraine,” under which the Cabinet of Ministers approves the procedure for maintaining the prohibited software and equipment list. At the same time, the State Service of Special Communications and Information Protection is responsible for forming and maintaining the list. However, this provision was introduced only a few months ago, and the procedure is still under development.

Definition and simplified regulation of ultralight aircraft in Ukraine’s Air Code

Unlike the current regulations, which require full certification and state registration for all light aircraft and official licenses for pilots, Bill No. 13463 designates ultralight aircraft as a separate category with its own set of rules. Under the bill, ultralight aircraft are defined as flying vehicles with a maximum takeoff weight of up to 600 kg that may operate only outside populated areas and infrastructure facilities, at altitudes up to 120 meters. The bill establishes a simplified operating regime: these aircraft could be used without an operator certificate or a pilot license. They could be operated by individuals over 21 who have completed a free online course offered by the State Aviation Administration of Ukraine (SAAU) covering safety basics, technical training, and first aid. Technical requirements for the aircraft and maintenance would be set by the SAAU, which would also maintain a registry in which owners would be required to register their ultralight aircraft.

The bill limits flight conditions based on weather, prohibits flying while intoxicated, and requires compliance with altitude restrictions and minimum distances from infrastructure. During martial law or a state of emergency, special permission would be required for flights.

The draft aims to simplify and expand the possibilities for using aircraft already available in Ukraine, including domestically produced models such as the Aeroprakt A-22.

Introduction of the Mriya app: e-documents for education

Bill No. 13456 provides for the regulation of the Mriia app as part of the Unified State Web Portal of Electronic Services. The app includes a database and an educational information system. It is intended to ensure the exchange of information, data collection, and processing related to the educational process and the interaction among participants in education (learners, teaching and academic staff, parents, school administrators, and education authorities). The app would generate a unique digital identifier, Mriia-ID—an electronic certificate of a participant in the educational process.

The app would also generate electronic documents confirming the level of education obtained, which could be used instead of paper equivalents.

Changes in the field of civil protection: shelters, safety centers, training, and rescue service records

Bill No. 13454 seeks to clarify and expand the powers of local self-government bodies (LSGs) in civil protection. They would be allowed to build or restore protective structures for the population, including mobile ones (such as containers or modular units) and dual-purpose facilities like underground parking garages that can function as shelters. While this is already possible under current law, the bill specifies that these powers include the arrangement of public shelters accessible to all, and outlines what to do if a shelter has no owner or belongs to a bankrupt enterprise. The bill also proposes enabling communities to establish safety centers—specialized facilities where firefighters, medics, and police could operate together. On the one hand, this would allow for faster emergency response, especially during attacks on civilian infrastructure or rural areas; on the other hand, such centers may become potential targets for enemy strikes. Local self-government bodies would create these centers, and the procedure for their establishment would be approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.

The draft law also provides for creating safety classrooms in schools, fire stations, or premises owned by local self-government bodies (such as cultural centers, administrative service centers, or other public buildings). These would teach children and adults how to act safely during emergencies, including air raids, fires, evacuations, or encounters with explosive objects. The State Emergency Service (SES) would develop the content of this training in coordination with the Ministry of Education.

The changes also affect how protective structures are recorded. Currently, LSGs only keep records of shelters on enterprises’ balance sheets. The bill would also require them to register dual-purpose structures (such as underground parking lots, warehouses, or ground floors of shops) that can be used as shelters during special periods. This would help create a more complete registry of available facilities for protecting the population.

With certification of emergency rescue services, rescuers, and local and volunteer fire-rescue units already in place, the bill outlines a more detailed procedure. It establishes an electronic registry of these services. Only those who successfully pass certification would be entered into the registry. According to the bill, at least 70% of a service’s staff must be core personnel—rescuers performing rescue operations. Certification and checks of a service’s technical readiness would be carried out by an interagency certification commission established by the Cabinet of Ministers. Grounds for denial of certification or removal from the registry include low training levels, lack of equipment, safety violations, or failure by personnel to complete required advanced training.

Detention and arrest of lawyers may require approval from the High Council of Justice

Bill No. 13453 seeks to introduce a special procedure for detaining lawyers. It would only be allowed with prior approval from the High Council of Justice, based on a submission by the Prosecutor General or their deputy. Without such authorization, detaining or arresting a lawyer would be prohibited—except in cases where the lawyer is caught in the act or immediately after committing a serious or especially serious crime. In such cases, the lawyer could be detained temporarily to prevent another crime, eliminate the consequences of a crime already committed, or preserve evidence. Once the lawyer’s identity is established, they must be immediately released if, first, the High Council of Justice has not granted consent for further detention, and second, the grounds for continued detention no longer exist (i.e., the crime has been prevented, the consequences eliminated, or evidence preserved).

The request for detention must be substantiated with specific facts and evidence. The High Council of Justice would review the submission within five days and decide whether to grant permission to detain the lawyer, hold them in custody, or arrest them. The bill does not specify what happens if the Council does not grant this approval.

Drivers may be mandatorily stripped of their licenses after fatal traffic accidents

Currently, the Criminal Code provides that drivers who cause an accident resulting in death or serious injury may be sentenced to 3 to 8 years in prison. In addition, the court may (but is not required to) ban them from driving for three years. Bill No. 13482 proposes stripping such drivers of their license if a court finds them guilty, in addition to imprisonment. The court would only decide how long the disqualification lasts.