TI Ukraine Urges Revision of Draft Law No. 14057 Limiting Media and Public Oversight

On September 21, Members of Parliament registered Draft Law No. 14057, which proposes comprehensive amendments to the regulation of an individual’s personal non-property rights. Among other things, it contains provisions that, under current conditions, could adversely affect the media and civil society organizations by significantly restricting their ability to report on matters of public interest.

Such provisions would have a chilling effect and may hinder the democratic development of the state. The following proposed norms are of particular concern:

1. Automatic recognition of information violating the presumption of innocence as false.

The authors propose to automatically consider as false any information that violates the presumption of innocence until a person’s guilt is proven and established by a final and binding court conviction.

While respect for and adherence to the presumption of innocence is an essential element of a democratic order, it cannot automatically negate the right to freedom of expression. Without a clear and advance delineation of what constitutes compliance with the presumption of innocence, such an initiative could negatively affect the work of those engaged in investigative journalism as well as those monitoring high-profile corruption cases in the courts.

2. Interference in selection procedures through demands for retraction

The draft law could enable candidates for top positions to demand the retraction of information regarding their assets or personal history published by competition commissions or advisory groups as part of the vetting process. Moreover, if such bodies refuse to retract the information voluntarily, a court could order them to withdraw or annul such decisions, destroy them, or issue new ones without the contested information.

This would undermine the integrity of competitive selection procedures by allowing judicial interference in their conduct and restricting the independence of competition commissions through court assessments of the accuracy of information about candidates. Such provisions could compromise the quality of virtually all competitive appointments to top positions in Ukraine, including judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court, the Constitutional Court, and others.

3. Removal of subjectively “irrelevant” information (right to be forgotten)

The proposal to enshrine in law an individual’s right to demand the deletion of information from publicly available sources is based on vague categories — such as “irrelevance of information” or “loss of public interest.” This could allow courts to uphold claims from individuals seeking to remove negative information about themselves, even if it was disseminated long ago. This would negatively affect selection procedures, as candidates would be able to “clean up” their information landscape in advance, substantially limiting the public’s ability to obtain a full picture of such individuals.

In addition, especially in today’s context, it is vital for Ukrainians to remember those who have spread pro-Russian narratives. The implementation of a “right to be forgotten” could enable precisely those individuals to erase certain chapters of their past from public access.

Despite the extensive package of legal reforms proposed by Draft Law No. 14057, certain provisions could trigger hundreds of lawsuits by interested parties against media outlets and civil society organizations working on anti-corruption issues.

This would undoubtedly undermine the quality of anti-corruption efforts. The authors of the draft law should not restrict freedom of expression by justifying questionable provisions under the pretext of adapting Ukrainian legislation to European standards.

Therefore, Transparency International Ukraine calls on Members of Parliament to revise the provisions of Draft Law No. 14057 after broader consultations with all stakeholders.