Reforms or Manipulation: What’s Happening with the Civil Code
1 May 20:47
OPINION
On April 28, the Verkhovna Rada approved in principle a draft law on the revision of the Civil Code of Ukraine. The document is intended to serve as a fundamental reform of private law, but it has already drawn a wave of criticism even at the first reading stage.
Vladimir Vatrus, a member of the Committee on Legal Policy, commented
First and foremost, the politician draws attention to one of the most widely circulated myths—that the bill allegedly allows marriage from the age of 14. He explains that such a provision did indeed exist only in the first draft of the document. It concerned the possibility for pregnant girls or those who had already given birth to marry by court order. However, this idea sparked significant public outcry and was removed several months ago.
“Given the stance of the public and many colleagues, this provision was removed from the bill about three or four months ago,” Vatrus emphasized.
In the current version, which was considered in parliament, the existing approach remains: the possibility of marriage from the age of 16 by court order. At the same time, the politician acknowledges that the issue of protecting the rights of underage girls in difficult life circumstances requires further discussion.
“Perhaps we didn’t fully take the girls’ interests into account… but we responded to public demand,” he notes.
Another topic of discussion was the issue of divorce during pregnancy or during the child’s first year of life. According to Vatras, this provision has also been amended. While the draft law previously imposed restrictions on divorce during this period, such a ban has now been completely removed. This decision was a response to criticism from human rights advocates and the public.
Watch us on YouTube: important topics – without censorship
He also addressed the issue of the timeframe for spousal reconciliation. Here, he said, it is not a matter of introducing new provisions, but of improving existing legislation.
“We have improved this provision; we have moved away from the six-month period; we have reduced the timeframes for reconciliation and, in general, have moved away from the position that the court takes measures to facilitate reconciliation in cases where domestic violence has occurred,” the deputy explains.
In his view, this is an important step toward a more equitable approach.
The issue of changing one’s surname after marriage has become no less controversial. Vatrás points out the one-sided nature of the criticism, which largely focuses on the “unfaithful spouse.” He emphasizes that the provision is gender-neutral and can apply to either spouse. At the same time, the decision on whether to lose one’s surname will be made by a court, which eliminates automaticity and leaves room for a fair hearing.
According to the politician, the information campaign that unfolded on the eve of the bill’s consideration is particularly concerning. He notes that during the seven years of work on the document and even during the open public discussion, there was no such level of criticism.
“For some reason, after the bill had been under public discussion for two to three months, there were no significant comments,” he emphasizes.
Despite this, the bill’s authors declare their openness to dialogue. Representatives of the working group are ready to consider constructive suggestions and refine the document before the second reading. According to Vatras, the main task is to create a modern and balanced legal act that will meet both the needs of society and the principles of justice.
As reported by
Read us on Telegram: important topics – without censorship
