The “Fundamentals” of Fighting Corruption: What the Opening of EU Negotiations Will Change

Today in Luxembourg, the EU member states officially opened the first negotiating cluster on Ukraine’s accession to the EU. To the general public this may sound like just another diplomatic event. But behind that formality lie years of work by the government, state bodies, and civil society — hundreds of recommendations and concrete commitments on whose fulfillment the country’s future depends.

In recent days, Ukrainians have read and heard a great deal about the so-called “Fundamentals” cluster. But what is this cluster? How does it affect European integration, and what does it have to do with fighting corruption? Let me try to explain.

Why Fundamentals is not a technical annex but the basis of the negotiations

Cluster 1 — Fundamentals of the Accession Process — brings together, among others, the chapters that matter most to us: the rule of law, the fight against corruption, public procurement, and financial control. This is no random set of topics, because it is precisely these areas that determine whether a state is governed by the rule of law, whether it can be trusted as a partner, and whether the rights of its citizens and businesses are protected.

The EU’s logic is simple: Cluster 1 is the first to open and the last to close, because it lays the foundation for legal certainty within the country and, ultimately, shapes the trust that other partners place in it. In other words, it determines whether a country is ready to join the European family.

Even if Ukraine meets all the requirements in the other five clusters — on energy, transport, agriculture — membership in the EU is impossible without closing the commitments under Fundamentals. 

For us at TI Ukraine, this means one thing: rule-of-law reform and anti-corruption reform are no longer a “parallel track.” They are the main road to the EU.

What Ukraine has actually done to fight corruption over the past year

Critics like to record failures — and there are grounds for that. But an honest analysis requires acknowledging real achievements as well. And however difficult it is right now to pass new reforms, let alone implement them, there have indeed been concrete gains.

The most recent: in late May, the Verkhovna Rada passed the new Law on Public Procurement. This is a step the European Commission had been awaiting for several years, since the new law is intended to align our procurement rules with European ones. 

Beyond that, a notable anti-corruption achievement is that the NABU, the SAPO, and the HACC continue to markedly improve their performance. The number of verdicts is rising, as is the number of cases involving ministers, heads of central executive bodies, members of parliament, and representatives of the judiciary. 

Moreover, after the new law took effect, the ARMA completed a large-scale inventory of assets for 2017–2025, so it is finally clear how much property is under the Agency’s control. And by the end of 2025 alone, the body concluded more asset management agreements than in the previous two years combined. Following a drawn-out selection process for its new head, the Economic Security Bureau has entered an active phase of reform now that a director has been appointed. And finally, the NACP has drafted a new Anti-Corruption Strategy 2026–2030 — so there are now three draft laws before the Verkhovna Rada that should set this crucial document in motion.

Each of these steps is the result of long-running cooperation between civil society, the government, MPs, international partners, and the anti-corruption institutions themselves. But the key is for each of these examples to see the full cycle of change completed. 

Where the risks remain — and why NABU’s investigations change the rules of the game

But I have to be candid — many systemic problems remain. Let us consider them through examples.

The average time to hear a case at the HACC has reached a record 618 days. The mandatory external assessment of the NACP has not been carried out for more than four years. For several years now, the Accounting Chamber has operated with six of its eleven positions vacant — the competition has still not been fully launched, even though the relevant item kept appearing and disappearing from parliament’s agenda throughout last year and half of this one. The current State Anti-Corruption Program has been only half implemented.

And all of this against the backdrop of a latent political crisis triggered by last year’s attempts to neutralize the independence of the NABU and the SAPO. Those attempts failed, which ultimately gave rise to high-profile anti-corruption investigations such as Operation Midas and the Dynasty mansions case. 

This genuinely effective work by the anti-corruption bodies unexpectedly, for many, set off a different narrative in the socio-political space: that high-profile anti-corruption cases supposedly undermine the state’s capacity and damage its international image. But this, of course, is an utterly manipulative claim. 

First, because all of NABU’s and SAPO’s actions took place within the legal framework: the notices of suspicion were authorized by prosecutors after the evidence base had been gathered, those facing charges were able to mount a defense, and the process was open to the public. Second, removing from office those involved in corruption schemes in energy and defense during the war cleanses the public administration system rather than weakening it. So such investigations should clearly work in favor of the state’s internal capacity.

And given Ukraine’s European integration potential, it is worth recalling that in all our key commitments to our partners, strengthening the anti-corruption institutions is written in as a mandatory condition of support. Because our European partners view the fight against corruption as an investment in the country’s security, not an obstacle to it. 

At a meeting in Kyiv, Marta Kos said plainly that our officials must avoid any thought of rolling back reforms — especially in the areas of anti-corruption, judicial reform, and the independence of key institutions. What is that, if not confirmation of support for our anti-corruption bodies?

Quality work by the NABU and the SAPO is a signal of the system’s institutional maturity, clear to everyone who follows Ukraine. And that should be remembered on Bankova, Hrushevskoho, and the other capital streets where Ukrainian politics is made. 

What comes next, and how realistic membership is

Here I will recall that, as of now, there are no official timelines for Ukraine’s accession to the EU. And this is an honest position: the speed of our progress depends not on dates on the calendar but on the consistency of reforms. As Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos noted, the reforms Ukraine has already carried out — including under the Ukraine Facility — must come together into a single negotiating process. But for that, they must be real, not declarative.

For us at TI Ukraine, the opening of Cluster 1 is not a cause for celebration but the start of a new stage of responsibility. Negotiations with the European Union create an external framework, but only internal political will can fill it with substance. And the consistency of that will is perhaps the most important indicator by which the EU will assess Ukraine in the coming years. The European Union has opened the first doors for us — and now the question is whether we can walk through them. 

This publication has been produced with financial support from Norway. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of [grant recipient’s name] and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the Government of Norway.