Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
🚫 The Head of the State Regulatory Service, Oleksii Kucher, simultaneously led a central executive body and the supervisory board of the state enterprise “Forests of Ukraine.”
Despite the direct constitutional prohibition on such dual office-holding, this circumstance has still not received proper legal evaluation, in particular from the NACP. In addition to the Constitution, such an appointment also contradicts the provisions of the Law “On Prevention of Corruption.”
📌 Kucher was appointed head of the State Regulatory Service back in 2021. 21 in January 2025 the Cabinet of Ministers, by order No. 46-r, approved his candidacy as the state’s representative to the supervisory board of the SE “Forests of Ukraine.”
Already in 2 April the members of the newly created supervisory board elected Kucher its chair. In addition, he joined the Audit Committee and the Appointments and Remuneration Committee. Only in February 2026 was it announced that he had left the supervisory board. At that time neither the CMU nor Kucher himself publicly explained the reasons for this “spontaneous” decision.
The Constitution itself provides the legal assessment of the circumstances described. Part 1 of Article 120 explicitly establishes that heads of central executive bodies do not have the right to be members of the governing body or supervisory board of an enterprise or organization that aims to make a profit. This interpretation of the provision was confirmed by the Constitutional Court in decision No. 16-rp/2002 as early as 2002.
A provision analogous to the constitutional prohibition on holding dual offices is contained in paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 25 of the Law “On Prevention of Corruption.” It expressly prohibits persons authorized to perform state functions from being members of supervisory boards of enterprises whose activities are aimed at making a profit. The mere fact of joining a supervisory board already constitutes an administrative offense under Articles 172-4 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.
Formally, Kucher’s appointment was justified as representation of state interests on the supervisory board. However, this argument does not remove the constitutional prohibition. The Law “On Prevention of Corruption” provides that such an exception applies only if otherwise not established by the Constitution of Ukraine. Second, Article 120 of the Constitution contains no exception for heads of central executive bodies who represent state interests. Third, at the time of the appointment the SE “Forests of Ukraine” was a state unitary enterprise, not a joint-stock company, so the legislative exception concerning the management of the state’s corporate rights does not apply in this case at all.
Moreover, these facts also provide grounds for the NACP to investigate a possible conflict of interest involving Oleksii Kucher.
💬 ABleaks_bot
💕 Join
