Draft Law No. 11082 “On Appeals” (hereinafter referred to as the draft law) was developed in accordance with the instructions of the Prime Minister of Ukraine to harmonize legislation with The Law of Ukraine “On Administrative Procedure” (hereinafter referred to as the LAP) to build a modern, democratic institute of appeals. Its initial concept was supposed to perform the following tasks: separate the sphere of “citizens’ appeals” from administrative proceedings (applications and complaints), ensure de-Sovietization of the legislation on appeals, and promote openness of public authorities. However, the wording of this draft law, developed by the Committee of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Human Rights, Deoccupation and Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories of Ukraine, National Minorities and Interethnic Relations (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) to the second reading, nullifies the reformist idea and actually returns the Soviet model of considering appeals, which is inconsistent with the principles of the LAP and the European administrative tradition.
Despite the declared non-interference in the sphere of administrative cases (Part 2, Article 1 of the draft law), the text still contains the concepts of applications, complaints, and petitions, which belong to procedural regulation and are to be considered under the LAP. This creates a dual regulatory framework and contradicts the principle of legal certainty (Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine) and actually eliminates the new system of administrative proceedings introduced by the LAP. The draft law does not fulfill its main task – to separate appeals with proposals from appeals with complaints that are considered under the LAP procedure. This may give rise to a conflict, in particular when issues related to access to environmental information, appealing environmental decisions, or public participation in environmental decision-making may fall into an undefined legal field. As a result, the public risks not having clear procedural guarantees for considering their applications and complaints under the LAP, and may be limited in their right to effective access to information or participation in environmental decision-making processes.
In addition, the definition of “subject of considering an appeal” (p. 2, part 1, article 3 of the draft law) includes all enterprises, institutions, organizations regardless of their form of ownership, public associations and media. At the same time, previous version of the draft law defined the concept of “subject of considering an appeal” as a state authority, another state authority, an authority of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, a local self-government body, their officials, other entities whose powers include consideration of the issues raised, including entities that, in accordance with the law, are authorized to perform public administration functions, provide services, in particular on issues of general economic interest. While the previous version of the draft law clearly limited the circle of entities considering appeals to those who perform public authority functions or provide administrative services, then the updated version approved by the Committee actually removes the difference between governmental and non-governmental entities, obliging everyone including government bodies, private enterprises and the media to consider appeals.
The return to the draft law of provisions on the “right to be present at the consideration of the appeal”, “to familiarize yourself with the materials of the consideration” or “to appeal the response” is an example of an imitation, rather than a real substantive guarantee of citizens’ rights. These norms have their roots in the Soviet bureaucratic model, where “consideration of an appeal” was reduced to a formal response to citizens’ letters, and not to a real process of participation in decision-making. Such “rights” do not create access to primary environmental data, do not guarantee familiarization with draft decisions, impact assessments or justifications of environmental feasibility, and therefore do not implement Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information and do not comply with Article 6 of this Convention, which establishes requirements for real public participation in environmental decision-making. In other words, the draft law, instead of strengthening environmental democracy, recreates a decorative “Soviet” model of participation, where citizens are invited to observe the consideration of the appeal, but not to be participants in the decision-making process. Such logic directly contradicts the European concept of good environmental governance, according to which public participation should be meaningful, timely and influential, not formal.
It is also worth noting that draft law No. 11082 is directly mentioned in the Ukraine 2024 Report as part of the legislative package for implementation of the LAP. In its current version, it does not meet European criteria of good administration, since it does not provide a transparent and effective channel for political and public proposals, but only duplicates the administrative procedure, and moreover, creates conflicts with legal regulation under the LAP.
In the context of compliance with European standards, it is also worth mentioning that European law (in particular, Directive 2003/4/EC on access to environmental information and Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation) requires: simplified, non-discriminatory procedures for contacting authorities, clear responsibility of state bodies for providing information, a legal mechanism for appealing decisions or inaction in the event of denial of access or violation of the right to participate.
However, the version of draft law No. 11082 that was prepared for the second reading in the Parliament moves in the opposite direction. Not only does it not simplify and streamline the appeal procedures, but on the contrary, it complicates citizens’ access to government bodies, blurring the responsibilities of public entities and mixing administrative and communicative tools.
Thus, draft law No. 11082, prepared for the second reading in the Parliament, has lost its reformation potential and restores outdated, Soviet-style institutional approaches. Its adoption in this form will stop the Europeanization of the institute of appeals, complicate implementation of the EU recommendations, and create an additional burden on public administration.
