For three years, the European Union has stood unwaveringly behind Ukraine amidst Russia’s aggressive invasion, pledging support encapsulated in the phrase “as long as it takes.” This commitment involves financial assistance, military aid, energy security measures, free trade agreements, and provisions for the influx of refugees. Additionally, the EU has earmarked a special €100 billion fund in its long-term budget, aimed at assisting Ukraine’s future reconstruction efforts. However, this consistently strong backing appears to have faced its first significant challenge following recent controversial legislative decisions in Ukraine that have sparked discontent in Brussels.
A newly passed law in Ukraine gives the prosecutor general, a political appointee, unprecedented oversight over two key anti-corruption bodies—the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). This legislation allows the prosecutor general to dictate which cases are handled by these agencies, effectively undermining their independence. This law was enacted rapidly, raising alarm bells within the European Commission, particularly following security service raids on NABU offices under allegations of espionage. Commissioner Marta Kos’s concerns about the dismantling of anti-corruption safeguards were quickly echoed across the EU, yet President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed the law anyway.
Conversely, Zelenskyy insisted that strong anti-corruption measures are essential, aiming to eliminate foreign influences and restore justice in Ukraine. In an escalating response, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen contacted Zelenskyy to express the EU’s dismay over the legislation. Von der Leyen underscored that respect for the rule of law is a core tenet of EU principles and that any compromises in this regard could impede Ukraine’s aspirations for EU membership. Following their conversation, Zelenskyy vowed to introduce new legislation aimed at reinforcing the rule of law, although specific details were vague.
Ukraine’s fight against corruption has been pivotal in its journey toward EU membership, especially since the full-scale invasion began. Corruption has plagued Ukraine since the Soviet Union’s dissolution, fostering a landscape where oligarchs and organized crime have thrived amid political instability. Transparency International consistently ranks Ukraine poorly on corruption metrics, underscoring the challenge the country faces in convincing the EU and international partners of its commitment to reform. The EU had established anti-corruption measures as one of the prerequisites for Ukraine to begin accession negotiations, fueled by the need for integrity in public institutions to attract investments.
Despite Ukraine’s considerable efforts to bolster its anti-corruption framework, the introduction of new legislation undermines recent improvements noted in a Commission report. NABU and SAPO have generally demonstrated resilience as key institutions combating high-level corruption. The EU’s recommendations for enhancing these bodies—allowing SAPO to independently initiate investigations—have effectively been nullified by the new law, which positions the prosecutor general as the primary authority over both institutions.
The implications of this legislation could further complicate Ukraine’s EU accession hopes already stalled by Hungary’s veto, which has blocked negotiations on crucial reforms needed to combat corruption. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s opposition has been driven by concerns over Ukraine’s war status and minority rights. The EU has defended Ukraine’s reform efforts, yet the backlash against the recent law may provide Orbán with renewed justification for his stance, leading to speculation about a potential divergence in the accession paths of Ukraine and Moldova, which has applied for EU membership on similar grounds. While both nations were uplifted as candidates simultaneously, Moldova remains less encumbered by political roadblocks, potentially allowing it to advance while Ukraine’s progress stagnates due to inner turmoil. The centrality of anti-corruption measures in the EU accession process and ongoing financial commitments puts additional pressure on the Ukrainian government to amend its recent legal changes to restore the independence of its anti-corruption institutions.
