Single-Judge Trial in Civil and Sanction Confiscation Cases: Legal Analysis of Draft Law No. 14033

On September 11, 2025, the government registered Draft Law No. 14033, aimed at improving the procedure for case consideration by the High Anti-Corruption Court.

The initiative concerns the introduction of a single-judge trial in cases of civil confiscation conducted under the Civil Procedure Code, as well as in sanction cases considered under the Administrative Procedure Code.

The need to amend the rules on civil confiscation was previously mentioned in our latest HACC case monitoring report. Also, a corresponding measure is included in the Rule of Law Road Map approved in May 2025.

Brief conclusions:

• The draft law could have a positive effect on the speed of case consideration on civil and sanction confiscations at the HACC by reducing the number of judges required to hear certain categories of cases.
• However, it requires improvement in terms of establishing the procedure for deciding on a collegial (panel) trial in civil confiscation cases, as well as strengthening procedural guarantees for the parties and participants in sanction cases.

Our recommendations:

• Define the procedure for deciding on a collegial trial in civil confiscation cases.
• Extend the procedural time limits for filing an appeal and a reply to the statement of claim to 15 days from the date of the judgment’s pronouncement or publication, and from the date of receipt of the statement of claim, respectively.

What is it like now?

At present, the law governing civil proceedings provides that cases on recognizing assets as unjustified and recovering them to the state are considered by a panel of three judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court.

Similarly, the Administrative Procedure Code stipulates that cases on applying the sanction provided for in Article 4(1)(1-1) of the Law of Ukraine on Sanctions are to be considered by a panel of three HACC judges within 30 days from the date the statement of claim is received by the court.

Proposed amendments

The government proposes to define that cases on recognizing assets as unjustified and recovering them to the state will be considered by a HACC judge either single-handedly or by a panel of three judges, depending on the case’s complexity.

Cases concerning the application of the sanction provided for in Article 4(1)(1-1) of the Law of Ukraine on Sanctions would be heard within 30 days from the date of the statement of claim’s receipt, without specifying that these cases must be considered by a panel.

The final and transitional provisions of the draft law stipulate that the previous rules on collegial consideration will continue to apply to cases:

• on recognizing assets as unjustified and recovering them to the state, where proceedings were opened before the Law enters into force;
• on applying the sanction provided for in Article 4(1)(1-1) of the Law of Ukraine on Sanctions, where proceedings were opened before the law entered into force.

Areas for improvement

The draft law indeed introduces relevant and timely amendments that may enhance the efficiency of both civil confiscation and sanction proceedings at the HACC. Moreover, in our latest HACC monitoring report, we called on Parliament to introduce a single-judge trial mechanism for civil confiscation cases.

Regarding civil confiscation cases, the provision defining how a HACC judge will decide whether a case is to be considered single-handedly or by a panel needs further clarification.

The mechanism of “expanding” the composition of the court due to case complexity is not new to procedural legislation. Both administrative and commercial procedures already allow a case that is normally heard by a single judge to be considered by a panel either on the court’s initiative or at the request of a party. In these examples, the stage at which such a decision may be taken is clearly defined — before the preparatory hearing ends or before the trial begins if no preparatory hearing is held. The court issues a separate ruling to formalize such a ruling.

The draft law does not specify at what stage, on whose initiative (solely the court’s or also the parties’), and in what form this decision is to be made. It is also essential to set clear criteria of complexity that the court may apply when initiating a collegial trial. This would also help judges better substantiate their decisions on forming a panel, as it would provide a structured basis for their reasoning.

These aspects need to be refined to eliminate the risk of future appeals claiming that the case was not heard by a “court established by law.” For example, the defendant’s official position could serve as one criterion for determining whether the case should be tried by a single judge or a panel.

International institutions have repeatedly emphasized the need to establish clear rules and criteria for forming a court composition in each case. The draft law’s proposal essentially introduces exceptions to the general rules of case assignment based on case complexity. The Venice Commission has previously noted that the allocation of cases among judges should be based on objective and transparent criteria established in advance by law or special rules adopted under the law, such as court regulations. The Commission also stressed that exceptions to these criteria must be justified.

Similarly, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers’ Recommendations on the independence of judges state that a case should not be withdrawn from a particular judge without valid reasons. Any such withdrawal must be based on objective, pre-established criteria and follow a transparent procedure within the judiciary. Although these findings concern the assignment and withdrawal of cases, they can also apply to the procedure of “expanding” the composition of the court, as it equally involves a change in the judicial panel.

The introduction of a single-judge trial in sanction confiscation cases is also justified by the need to reduce the workload of HACC judges. However, it would be appropriate to accompany this change with longer procedural time limits for filing appeals, since appeals are considered by a panel of the HACC Appeals Chamber.

Currently, parties and their representatives may file an appeal against a HACC decision within five days from the date of its pronouncement. If only the introductory and operative parts of the judgment were announced in court, the time limit starts from the date the full text is completed and published on the official HACC website. An identical five-day time limit applies under the Administrative Procedure Code for submitting a reply to a statement of claim.

Transparency International Ukraine has long stressed the need to extend procedural time limits in sanction cases, including the period for submitting a statement of defense and appeals against first-instance decisions. Procedural rights in sanction proceedings concern not only sanctioned persons but also the Ministry of Justice, which may also appeal first-instance decisions, and third parties — often Ukrainian companies and citizens not subject to sanctions.

We propose extending both the reply and appeal deadlines to 15 days, in line with Administrative Procedure Code standards. This should take into account the extraordinary nature of the confiscation mechanism and its application exclusively during martial law. The current method of calculating these time limits does not require amendment.

Conclusions

Transparency International Ukraine recommends adopting Draft Law No. 14033 only after revisions aimed at:

• specifying the criteria for determining the complexity of civil confiscation cases to be considered by a HACC panel; defining the stage, initiative, and form for such a decision;
• extending procedural time limits for filing an appeal and a reply to the statement of claim to 15 days from the date of pronouncement or publication of the judgment and from the date of receipt of the statement of claim, respectively.