Bill No. 13673, which proposes to increase liability for illegal border crossing, does not yet have real enforcement mechanisms, according to Sergey Derevyanko, a lawyer with the Barristers law firm.
“The bill is incomplete, in particular because it is unclear how, for example, those who have left the temporarily occupied territories outside Ukraine and cannot return to their country for various reasons, such as serious illness or caring for a close relative with a disability, should act. According to the bill, such persons must return to Ukraine before the law comes into force or within three months after that, otherwise they will be held criminally liable, which, of course, violates the rights of such persons,” he told Interfax-Ukraine.
Derevyanko also noted that “it is unclear what to do with those people who, possibly without the relevant documents, left Ukraine at the beginning of the war for certain reasons and subsequently did not and do not have the opportunity to return to Ukraine in the near future.”
“This raises a number of questions, in particular, how and to whom these people, while abroad, should report their circumstances, given that changes to the Criminal Code regarding illegal crossing of the state border provide for exemption from criminal liability only on condition that persons who have been outside the country for three months from the moment of crossing the state border have returned to the territory of Ukraine and, before being notified of their suspicion of committing this criminal offense, have voluntarily reported what happened to the law enforcement agency,”
The lawyer also noted that the bill proposes to abolish criminal liability for violating the procedure for moving goods to or from the area of the anti-terrorist operation, “which is logical, since martial law has been introduced in Ukraine and, accordingly, the anti-terrorist operation is not yet being conducted.”
In addition, the bill provides for liability for obstructing the development of border infrastructure (obstructing the construction, development, or destruction/damage of engineering and technical or fortification structures, fences, border signs, border clearings, checkpoints across the state border of Ukraine, etc.).
Derevianko also drew attention to the bill’s provision on liability for conscripts, persons liable for military service, or reservists who violate the period of stay outside Ukraine established by law.
In addition, the bill proposes to increase liability for the illegal transfer of persons across the state border of Ukraine in conditions of martial law or a state of emergency.
“The purpose of the bill is to prevent evasion of conscription for military service through mobilization by ‘fleeing’ abroad, and to provide conscripts with the opportunity to return to Ukraine. If the bill is adopted, after three months, persons of draft age who illegally crossed the state border during martial law and did not return from abroad will be held criminally liable,” he said.
Commenting on what is meant by the “period of stay outside Ukraine under martial law established by law” specified in the bill, Derevyanko explained that “the current legislation does not provide a clear definition, but the terms of stay outside Ukraine for certain categories of citizens during martial law and a state of emergency are defined by Cabinet of Ministers Resolution No. 57 of January 27, 1995.”
“As an example, according to the aforementioned resolution, athletes included in the national teams of Ukraine may stay abroad continuously for no more than 30 calendar days from the date of crossing the state border, but not less than the duration of the event specified in the Unified Calendar Plan of Physical Culture, Health, Sports Events, and Sports Competitions of Ukraine for the corresponding year,” he said.
“It turns out that, as of today, there are no mechanisms for implementing the bill,” the lawyer concluded.
As reported, the Cabinet of Ministers submitted bill No. 13673 to the Verkhovna Rada, which proposes to increase the liability for illegal crossing of the state border.
It is noted that while in 2021 border guards recorded just over 3,000 illegal crossings of the state border of Ukraine, in 2022 such offenses more than doubled, in 2023 there were almost 10,000, in 2024, there will be more than 20,000, and in the first quarter of this year, almost 4,678 persons liable for military service were detained, which is 10% more than in the same period last year (4,539 persons).
The bill proposes introducing a penalty in the form of a fine ranging from 119,000 to 170,000 hryvnia or imprisonment for up to three years. For conscripts, persons liable for military service, or reservists who have exceeded the permitted period of stay abroad during martial law, a fine of 34,000 to 51,000 hryvnia or imprisonment for a term of three to five years is provided.
A fine of between 17,000 and 85,000 hryvnia or restriction or deprivation of liberty for up to three years is also provided for the deliberate damage of border infrastructure.
At the same time, the bill contains a provision exempting citizens from liability if they return to their homeland within a certain period and voluntarily report to law enforcement agencies with a statement about the criminal offense they have committed.
The Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs noted on its Telegram channel on Friday that the draft law had been prepared by the ministry.
“Today, unfortunately, we are seeing mass attempts to evade mobilization by illegally leaving the country. As practice shows, administrative fines do not deter violators,” the statement said.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs explains that the draft proposes transferring the consideration of administrative cases of illegal border crossing to border guards, because it is faster and more effective.
As clarified to Interfax-Ukraine by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, cases of this category are currently handled by courts, and decisions are often delayed.
Prisoners in frontline territories often only have remote access to lawyers and remain the most vulnerable in wartime, according to Barristers partners Oleksiy Shevchuk and Oleksandr Shadrin.
“Prisoners remain the most vulnerable people in this regard. They cannot leave the premises during an alarm and go to a shelter. Sometimes, being located near the front line or military facilities becomes critical, or, as in the case of the Kyiv SIZO, which is located near the Lukyanivska metro station,” the lawyers told the Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
According to the Ministry of Justice, following the tragic incident at the Bilenky correctional colony, the evacuation of the following penitentiary institutions has begun: the Zaporizhzhia pre-trial detention center, the Vilnianska correctional facility (No. 11), and the Kamyanska correctional colony (No. 101)..
“This information is partially confirmed by rumors among prisoners. In particular, one of Shadrin’s clients, who is being held in the Zaporizhzhia pre-trial detention center, reported plans to evacuate them to the Dniprovskyi pre-trial detention center,” the lawyers said.
According to their information, no transfers to the court of appeal are currently being carried out from the Zaporizhzhia pretrial detention center.
“In the best case scenario, there will be a video conference, if there is electricity and communication. If only the prisoner is relocated and the court remains in the same region as before, the question of ensuring/not ensuring personal participation in the court hearing (at least in the first instance) will inevitably arise,” the agency’s interlocutors noted.
Shevchuk and Shadrin pointed out that prisoners in frontline areas often only have remote access to lawyers.
“Many lawyers have been mobilized or have left for safer regions. Of course, this situation can lead to problems with the right to a fair (adversarial) trial, which includes the possibility of confidential communication with a lawyer without witnesses from the police or the Security Service of Ukraine,” the lawyers said.
In addition, they drew attention to the fact that with the start of the large-scale invasion, a number of correctional colonies and pre-trial detention centers were occupied along with prisoners and staff, who were subsequently accused of treason or collaboration.
“For example, a dog handler at one of the penitentiary institutions in Kherson received such a charge: 12 years’ imprisonment with the right to hold relevant positions for 10 years (the relevant entry was made in the Register of Court Decisions – IF-U). Often, after the occupation, prisoners are encouraged to join the armed forces of the aggressor country, and if they refuse, they are thrown grenades into their cells or shot,” the lawyers said.
In addition, Shevchuk and Shadrin reported that penitentiary institutions remain significantly underfunded and conditions of detention are largely inhumane, as confirmed by numerous ECHR rulings, in particular due to overcrowding.
“After the repeal of the ‘Savchenko law’ (adopted in 2015, the law provided that one day of pre-trial detention in a detention center before sentencing was counted as two days of imprisonment in a correctional colony), the problem of overcrowding in detention centers and correctional colonies arose again. This is facilitated by the criminalization of theft and other property crimes, which have become serious due to the new “under martial law” designation, which is applied automatically. This phenomenon is also facilitated by the growing number of military personnel and suspects of high treason – categories for which the legislature has allowed detention without alternative,“ the lawyers note.
”These circumstances are expected to be the subject of review by the ECHR again,” Shevchuk and Shadrin predict.
According to media reports, in 2014, control was lost over 28 penal institutions in the occupied territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea, where about 20,000 prisoners are being held. In 2022, another 12 institutions with more than 3,000 people came under the control of the occupiers.
According to the Ministry of Justice, since the start of the full-scale invasion, 10 penal institutions have been evacuated from the combat zones and 12 evacuation operations have been carried out, although the list of specific institutions has not been made public.
Source: https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/1098389.html
The relocation of Ukrainian businesses abroad, which in 2022 took the form of emergency evacuation, is becoming strategic planning to diversify risks, enter EU markets, and ensure business continuity, according to Kateryna Danilova, partner at Barristers Law Firm.
“While in 2022 relocation was often an emergency evacuation, it is now taking on the characteristics of strategic planning with the aim of diversifying risks, entering EU markets, and ensuring business continuity,” she told the Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
Danilova noted that “since the start of the full-scale invasion, Ukrainian businesses have kept up their interest in relocation, although it’s changed depending on what’s happening on the front lines and the overall economic situation.”
According to the lawyer’s observations, the information technology (IT) sector is the most active in terms of relocation, due to its mobility, focus on global markets, and minimal dependence on physical assets.
“For IT companies, relocation often means opening offices in EU countries to retain their teams, which also allows them to guarantee continuity and stability of services to their clients and simplifies access to international financial infrastructure. Many companies based in Diia.City are setting up overseas hubs while keeping a significant part of their development in Ukraine,” she said.
In addition, according to Danilova, manufacturing companies in light industry, woodworking, component manufacturing, and the food industry are also very active in relocation.
“The main driver for them is the desire to protect production facilities from physical destruction, bring production closer to European consumers, expand the sales market, etc.,” she said.
Agrarian and processing enterprises are also active in relocation, seeking opportunities to create processing capacities in neighboring EU countries to gain access to the market without logistical complications at the border.
In addition, these are companies in the creative industry, consulting, and marketing, which, like IT, are mobile and actively integrating into the European market.
Commenting on the geography of relocation, Danilova noted that the choice of a relocation country depends on many factors, including geographical proximity, logistics, business conditions, the availability of support programs, the tax climate, and cultural and linguistic similarities.
Currently, the main destinations for Ukrainian businesses are Poland, which leads in the number of relocated Ukrainian companies, and Germany, where Ukrainian businesses are attracted by economic stability, access to the largest EU market, and high purchasing power, although this country is “characterized by a higher level of bureaucracy and tax burden.”
In addition, Ukrainian businesses are relocating to Romania and Bulgaria, which are gaining popularity thanks to, in particular, competitive tax rates and lower labor costs, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which are traditionally attractive due to their cultural proximity and favorable conditions for small and medium-sized enterprises, and the Baltic countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), which are “interesting for technology and innovation companies due to their developed digital infrastructure and favorable investment climate.”
However, Danilova stressed that “it is legally impossible to transfer an employee from a Ukrainian legal entity to a foreign one, as they are different business entities operating in different legal systems,” but in practice, companies use a number of mechanisms.
These include, in particular, dismissal in Ukraine and employment abroad, which is the most common and transparent mechanism, but requires the employee to obtain a residence and work permit in the country of relocation, or a business trip, which is risky for long-term work abroad.
In addition, companies use mechanisms for concluding civil law contracts, where an employee registers as an individual entrepreneur in Ukraine (or as an individual entrepreneur in the country of relocation) and concludes a service contract with a foreign company. This model is flexible but carries the risk of additional taxes and penalties.
Another common mechanism is intra-corporate transfer (Intra-Corporate Transferee), which is used in EU countries that have implemented the relevant EU Directive, which creates simplified conditions for the temporary transfer of key managers, specialists, and trainees within a group of companies. This requires, in particular, the existence of legally related Ukrainian and foreign companies. Another popular mechanism is outsourcing or “leasing” of employees, which involves removing employees from the payroll on condition that they are hired by a foreign company. However, Ukrainian legislation does not contain clear regulatory provisions governing such legal relations.
Commenting on the pitfalls of Ukrainian legislation in the field of relocation, Danilova noted a number of restrictions in the Ukrainian legal field, in particular, currency restrictions, rules for controlled foreign companies (CFC), transfer pricing (TP), as well as restrictions on travel abroad and the movement of assets.
In addition, banking compliance and opening a bank account for a new company in the EU founded by Ukrainian citizens, the complexity of managing a dual structure, the loss of preferential treatment upon the actual transfer of activities abroad, in particular IT companies, which may lose the advantages of the special legal and tax regime of Dnipro.City, as well as adaptation to foreign legislation.
“Relocating a business abroad is an effective tool for minimizing the risks of war, but at the same time it is a complex legal and organizational project. The success of relocation directly depends on comprehensive strategic planning that takes into account all legal, tax, financial, and operational aspects,” she said.
Barristers, BUSINESS, Danilova, ENTERPRISES, LAWYER, RELOCATION
The law firm “Barristers” has signed a memorandum of cooperation with the public organizations “Caucasian Union” and the “International Institute for Caucasus Studies” with the aim of providing legal support to representatives of the Caucasian diaspora in Ukraine.
According to the company’s statement, the signing of the document is a response to the challenges faced by people from the Caucasus, who have been fighting against Russian aggression for the past decades. As noted by Yurii Radzievskyi, a partner at “Barristers,” the lawyers specialize in criminal legal defense, particularly in cases involving politically motivated persecution.
“From 2014 to 2022, there were already cases in Ukraine of detentions and extraditions of fighters of Caucasian origin at the request of the Russian Federation. We will not allow such practices to continue,” he emphasized at a press conference at the “Interfax-Ukraine” agency on Thursday.
Another partner at “Barristers,” Oleksii Shevchuk, stated that supporting the peoples of the Caucasus is part of a broader struggle for freedom. “A free Caucasus is an alliance of independence fighters who stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukrainians in defending the right to be free. We publicly declare our support for this struggle,” he said.
The head of the “Caucasian Union” NGO, Dzhabrail Mirzoev, emphasized the importance of legal assistance, particularly in the context of repression and political persecution. “This team of lawyers will help save the lives of many fighters,” he declared.
In turn, the head of the “International Institute for Caucasus Studies,” Kostiantyn Salii, underlined the role of an independent academic platform that will allow Caucasian researchers to work freely and publish truthful materials. He also noted the importance of protecting scholars and activists from accusations of “extremism” by the Russian Federation: “In Ukraine, one can prove their case relying on lawyers who know how to defend.”
Participants in the initiative believe that the signed memorandum will become an important milestone in the protection of the rights of representatives of the Caucasian peoples under the ongoing Russian aggression.
Since the beginning of 2025, Ukraine’s judicial system has shown some progress in the introduction of new technologies, but there are delays in the consideration of cases and the enforcement of court decisions, according to Vitaliy Chayun, a lawyer at the Barristers law firm.
“The war has affected all aspects of the functioning of the courts, from the physical safety of judges to citizens’ access to justice. Despite this, the courts continue to operate, adapting to the conditions of martial law and the requirements of European integration reforms. In the first half of 2025, the judicial system showed some progress in the implementation of new technologies and reforms, but faced a number of problems, such as delays in the consideration of cases and difficulties in the enforcement of court decisions,” he told the Interfax-Ukraine news agency.
Chayun recalled that in 2024, 5.3 million cases were submitted to courts of all instances and jurisdictions, of which 4.4 million were considered by the courts.
“Approximately one million cases remain unresolved. This indicates a significant burden on the judicial system, especially given the conditions of martial law and staff shortages. It can be assumed that the number of cases in 2025 will remain high, given the growth in 2024 and the continuation of martial law,” he said.
Chayun noted that in the first half of 2025, Ukraine’s judicial system “continues to adapt to the conditions of war and reform in preparation for EU accession,” and among the main trends in the work of the judicial system is the introduction of remote court hearings, which allow hearings to be held without the physical presence of participants.
“This is especially important in wartime, when many citizens are internally displaced persons or live in combat zones. Given these challenges, the development of remote court proceedings is becoming a priority task, the implementation of which will ensure the effectiveness of court proceedings and procedural economy,” he said.
In addition, Chayun drew attention to the problem of filling judicial vacancies: in 2025, it is planned to appoint 1,800 judges to local courts, 550 to appellate courts, and 25 to the High Anti-Corruption Court. However, due to the length of the appointment procedures, “the judiciary has been ‘bled dry’ for many years.”
Chae also noted the processes of modernizing court IT systems and creating new specialized courts.
Commenting on the length of proceedings in Ukrainian courts, the lawyer pointed out that they “remain one of the key problems.” “Cases can be delayed for years due to a lack of funding for basic needs such as stamps, envelopes, and stationery necessary to send correspondence to parties to the proceedings,” he said.
According to Chayun, the delays affect “all types of cases, including economic cases, which are often complex due to the large number of documents and parties involved.” He recalled that between January and April 2025, 59,400 cases were pending in courts of various instances against the State Tax Service for a total amount of UAH 413.8 billion. At the same time, 6,900 cases worth UAH 78.7 billion were considered, of which 2,300 cases (including non-property disputes) worth UAH 44.4 billion were in favor of the State Tax Service, and 4,600 cases worth UAH 34.3 billion were in favor of taxpayers.
“Although there is no accurate data on the timing of economic cases in the first half of 2025, delays persist due to court overload and limited funding. It is expected that filling judicial vacancies and modernizing IT systems in the future will help speed up the consideration of cases, but in the first half of 2025, no significant improvements were achieved, and the shortage of personnel in the judicial system only exacerbates negative trends,” the lawyer emphasized.
He also drew attention to a number of problems with the enforcement of court decisions. “The enforcement of court decisions remains one of the most acute problems of the judicial system, as more than half of court decisions remain unenforced. In 2025, a new law on the digitization of enforcement proceedings and the implementation of a strategy to improve the work of the enforcement service are planned to be adopted. This demonstrates the state’s recognition of the existing problems in this area. However, during 2025, problems with the enforcement of court decisions are likely to persist due to the insufficient effectiveness of the enforcement service and a lack of resources,” the lawyer said.
“The Ukrainian judicial system showed gradual progress in implementing reforms in the first half of 2025, but delays in the consideration of cases, limited access to justice due to financial and technical problems, and difficulties in enforcing court decisions remain significant challenges. Lawyers are forced to adapt to these conditions, which requires additional efforts to protect their clients’ rights. Further reforms and support from the state and international partners are critical to ensuring effective and fair justice in Ukraine,” he concluded.
A special tribunal to investigate the crimes of Russian aggression against Ukraine complements the existing mechanisms of justice, becomes a critical step for the establishment of the rule of law in international relations and ensuring the inevitability of punishment for serious international crimes, said Victoria Zagoruy, attorney at Barristers.
Commenting to Interfax-Ukraine on the legal aspects of the establishment of the special tribunal, she noted that “the tribunal is a temporary international judicial body (ad hoc) established for a specific purpose: to investigate and prosecute those responsible for committing this key crime.” The statute of the special tribunal specifies that the “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution by a person in a position to exercise effective control over or direction of the political or military activities of a State of an act of aggression which, by its nature, gravity and scale, constitutes a clear violation of the UN Charter.
“The need to create such a body is due to the so-called jurisdictional gap in international law. The main obstacle to the investigation of the crime of aggression in national courts or the International Criminal Court is the immunity of senior officials (head of state, government, foreign minister), which protects them from foreign jurisdiction during their tenure. The special tribunal, which will act on behalf of the international community and is being created under the auspices of the Council of Europe, is designed to overcome this immunity,” the lawyer emphasized.
Zagoruy noted that “this mechanism will allow to bring to justice the top leaders of the aggressor state, regardless of their current status.”
In addition, the mechanism of the special tribunal provides for direct and indisputable jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, which allows prosecuting the leadership of the Russian Federation, despite the fact that the Russian Federation is not a party to the Rome Statute.
The special tribunal will also have international legal personality, rather than the status of a hybrid or national structure, and will provide for the possibility of in absentia proceedings, which “allows justice to be done even if the accused are not physically present in the courtroom” and means that “amnesty granted to any person under the jurisdiction of the special tribunal is not an obstacle to prosecution.”
“This is extremely important because it prevents national or third-party amnesties from obstructing justice for the crime of aggression. Thus, the establishment of the Special Tribunal is a historic step that clearly establishes accountability for senior officials for the crime of aggression, completely disregarding their personal immunities,” she said.
Commenting on the relationship between the special tribunal and the International Criminal Court (ICC), Zagoruy noted that “these are different but complementary institutions. In particular, the ICC has jurisdiction over four major international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
Ukraine has recognized the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on its territory by submitting two applications under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. This allows the ICC prosecutor to investigate and prosecute these categories of crimes.
At the same time, the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression is limited. According to the Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute, the ICC can only consider this crime if the aggressor state and the victim state are parties to the Rome Statute and have ratified these amendments, and if the case is referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council.
“Since neither Ukraine nor the Russian Federation has ratified the Rome Statute and the amendments on aggression, and the Russian Federation, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, has a veto, the ICC cannot independently prosecute this particular crime. This creates the very jurisdictional gap that the ad hoc tribunal is intended to fill. It will not duplicate the work of the ICC, but will complement it, providing comprehensive coverage of crimes committed during the aggression,” explained Zagoruy.
She emphasized that the ICC investigates war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide committed on the territory of Ukraine, and this applies to specific actions: the killing of civilians, torture, deportations, destruction of civilian infrastructure, etc. Both ordinary perpetrators and their commanders may be held responsible for them.
At the same time, the special tribunal will focus exclusively on the crime of aggression, i.e., the very fact of planning, preparing, initiating and waging a war of aggression. The responsibility for this crime lies solely with the highest political and military leadership of the aggressor state.
Zagoruy also noted that the interaction between the Special Tribunal and the ICC will be based on the principle of ne bis in idem (no one can be punished twice for the same act), which is fundamental in international law.
“A person cannot be convicted twice for the same crime. However, the same person may be convicted of different crimes. For example, an official can be convicted by a special tribunal for the crime of aggression (for ordering to start a war), and the same official can be convicted by the ICC for crimes against humanity (for example, for the policy of deporting children) or for war crimes (for orders to indiscriminately shell cities),” the lawyer explained.
She noted that the ad hoc tribunal may enter into agreements or practical arrangements with the ICC to ensure the effective exercise of their respective jurisdictions. In particular, whenever a person subject to an ICC arrest warrant is detained in ICC detention centers, the special tribunal will prioritize the proceedings before the ICC.
“The activities of the courts will be coordinated to ensure comprehensive justice and full accountability for all categories of international crimes. By focusing exclusively on the crime of aggression, the tribunal aims to bring to justice the top leadership of the Russian Federation, those responsible for the decision to start the war. For victims of the war who suffered from specific crimes, such as the destruction of property or illegal detention, the national courts of Ukraine and the ICC remain the mechanisms of justice, which are already actively working to document and investigate these crimes,” Zahoruy emphasized.
