Single-Judge Hearings in Civil Forfeiture and Sanctions Confiscation Cases: Legal Analysis of Draft Law No. 16043

On September 4, 2026, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine registered Draft Law No. 16043 in the Verkhovna Rada, titled “On Amendments to the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine to Improve the Procedure for the Consideration of Cases by the High Anti-Corruption Court.” It replaces Draft Law No. 14033, which we analyzed earlier and which was withdrawn following the government’s resignation.

Like its predecessor, the new Draft Law introduces single-judge consideration of civil forfeiture cases, which are heard under the Civil Procedure Code, and of sanctions cases, which are heard under the Code of Administrative Procedure. Notably, the new text already takes into account some of the comments we made on the previous version.

Key takeaways:

• Draft law No. 16043 addresses the main shortcoming of the previous version: it now clearly sets out at whose initiative, at what stage, and in what form the question of a panel hearing in civil forfeiture cases will be decided.
• However, the new version does not take up our recommendation to extend the procedural deadlines for filing a statement of defense and an appeal in sanctions cases from 5 to 15 days.

Our recommendations:

• Extend the deadlines for filing a statement of defense and an appeal in sanctions cases to 15 days through a separate draft law.

How it is now

Under the current law governing civil procedure, cases on declaring assets unjustified and recovering them to the state revenue are heard 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

Draft law No. 16043 provides that cases on declaring assets unjustified and recovering them to the state revenue will be heard by a single HACC judge. A panel hearing (by three judges) will be possible only upon a motion by a defendant who holds one of the positions on an exhaustive list: a President of Ukraine whose powers have been terminated, member of parliament, Prime Minister, member of the Cabinet of Ministers, Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, Prosecutor General, Deputy Prosecutor General – Head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, Head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Director of the State Bureau of Investigation, Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, Head of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention, Head of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine, Head of the Accounting Chamber, Head of the State Property Fund of Ukraine, Head of the Central Election Commission, Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Chair and judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, Chair of the Supreme Court, heads of the high specialized courts, and Head of the High Council of Justice.

The draft law also sets out a mechanism for exercising this right. In its ruling on opening proceedings, the court will be required to explain to a defendant on the list their right to file a motion for a panel hearing. Such a motion may be filed only before the case is scheduled for trial on the merits; if it is submitted later, it will be left without consideration. The court will decide on a panel hearing at the preparatory hearing.

As for sanctions cases, the words “by a panel of three judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court” will simply be deleted from the Code of Administrative Procedure. Such cases will be heard by a single judge, with no exceptions and no list of parties entitled to request a panel hearing.

As in the previous version, the Final and Transitional Provisions retain the rule that the previous procedure (panel hearings) applies to both categories of cases in which proceedings were opened before the law enters into force.

What needs improvement

Our main criticism of Draft Law No. 14033 was that it did not specify at what stage, at whose initiative, and in what form the question of a panel hearing in a civil forfeiture case would be decided, relying instead on a vague “complexity” criterion. This concern closely mirrors a problem that the seventh HACC monitoring report has already identified with a similar mechanism in criminal proceedings (in effect since May 16, 2024): the lack of a consistent approach to when a defendant may exercise the right to a panel hearing. The defense has at times exploited this to delay proceedings, notably in the Rotterdam+ case.

The new draft law removes this uncertainty for civil cases, and it does so in precisely the way we suggested as a benchmark. This approach is consistent with the Venice Commission’s position that the allocation of cases, and any exceptions to it, should be based on objective, transparent criteria established in advance by law. It also reduces the risk of decisions being challenged on the grounds that the case was not heard by a “tribunal established by law.”

At the same time, two issues from our previous analysis remain unresolved. The deadlines for appeals in sanctions cases have still not been extended and remain at 5 days.

Conclusions

Transparency International Ukraine recommends adopting Draft Law No. 16043 at first reading and as a whole. 

The extension of the procedural deadlines for filing a statement of defense and an appeal in sanctions cases to 15 days should be addressed through a separate draft law.

This material is funded by Norway. Its content is the sole responsibility of Transparency International Ukraine and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Norwegian Government.