Who did you choose, Frankivshchyna? What the people's deputies from Prykarpattia are doing in parliament

President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that in September a summit of the “Carpathian Integration Initiative” will take place in Frankivshchyna. This is a recreational rear-area region that is attractive to investors, like other regions that contain the Carpathians.

But along with investments the region could receive a new wave of development and protests from citizens. For example, in neighboring Zakarpattia environmental defenders are already fiercely fighting for the Svidovets mountain range near Drahobrat. They are trying to protect it from being turned into a resort-monster. And on the Runa mountain meadow wind turbines are being constructed without an environmental impact assessment. In the absence of a separate Ministry of the Environment, the Cabinet issues experimental decrees that open the way for such development without permits. And it is precisely here that the people’s deputies elected from Prykarpattia should be defending citizens’ interests and blocking harmful government initiatives.

The region is currently represented by six majoritarian MPs. One of the most prominent is former notary Ihor Fris (Servant of the People). He is lobbying legislative initiatives that could benefit developers. The media link Fris and another of his colleagues, Oleksandr Matusyevych, to an informal Kolomoisky group that formed in parliament since this convocation was elected. This group has business interests in Prykarpattia, as does Kolomoisky himself, notably in Bukovel.

It is worth noting that Fris was present in Prykarpattia during the president’s visit when he met with representatives of mountain communities and announced the September summit.

Post by people’s deputy Ihor Fris about Zelensky’s visit to Frankivshchyna

Besides the “Servants,” who are counted as part of the so-called Kolomoisky group, there are three other MPs from the ruling party – Volodymyr Tymofiichuk, Vasyl Virastyuk, and Eduard Proshchuk.

Although the Servants won most of the constituencies in the region, more than five years ago the party appointed not one of the majoritarians but a list MP, Olena Vintoniak, who was born in Kolomyia, as head of the regional branch.

By the way, the constituency that includes Kolomyia has been vacant since 2023. Majoritarian MP Andriy Ivanchuk (Dovira) died and a by-election was not held because the war began.

The only woman whom the region’s residents elected to parliament as a majoritarian is Svoboda member Oksana Savchuk. She represents the team of Ivano-Frankivsk mayor Ruslan Martsinkiv.

In whose interests is Fris helping to reset the Civil Code?

Ihor Fris became a key author of the scandalous changes to the Civil Code—the so-called Ihor Mazepa law (No. 4292). This law was nicknamed after one of its lobbyists, businessman Ihor Mazepa, who was suspected of creating a criminal organization and misappropriating land from the Kyiv HES. Under this law, if 10 years have passed, neither the community nor the state can reclaim green zones, shorelines, or cultural heritage sites. And if 10 years have not yet passed, a deposit equal to the market value of the object must be paid into the court from the budget.

All majoritarians from Frankivshchyna in 2025 voted for the “Ihor Mazepa law,” except Savchuk, who was absent. The head of the regional party branch of the Servants, MP Vintoniak, like her colleagues in the faction, voted in favor.

Fris’s initiative was criticized not only by civil society experts but also by the European Parliament in its resolution.

Citizens demanded that the president veto this bill and quickly collected more than 26 thousand signatures on a petition to the president. At the same time developers and businessmen promoted a counter-petition demanding the law be signed. For MP Fris it was not enough that he had cast his vote for the bill in the session hall. He decided to actively collect signatures for the counter-petition and personally signed it.

But the petition in the interest of the developers demanding the law be signed did not gather enough votes despite a large advertising campaign on social networks. Nevertheless, the president did sign the controversial law, ignoring the citizens’ petition.

And this year the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, Ruslan Stefanchuk, decided not just to amend the Civil Code, as was done with the “Ihor Mazepa law,” but to present an entirely new version of the code. If parliament supports it, all judicial practice developed over more than 20 years that allowed protection of state and communal property will be reset.

Ihor Fris admits he was involved in drafting the new code. The most criticized is Book Nine — the Justice Ministry even demanded its removal because it contains some of the largest risks. If information about protected natural areas or monuments is not in the registry, a notary will not see obstacles to removing such objects from state or communal ownership. And it will be much harder to challenge anything in court to return community or state property.

Screenshot of a post on Facebook by people’s deputy Ihor Fris

The proposed draft Civil Code also contains risks for the institution of marriage and for freedom of speech. It is worth noting that Fris sued the editorial board of Holka and the Supreme Court found his claims against the local media to be insignificant. So it is not surprising that the MP is trying, together with colleagues, to shape the legislative field so that it becomes harder for journalists to work and easier and safer for those who want access to state and community resources.

All majoritarians from Frankivshchyna, except Savchuk, voted for the draft Civil Code in the first reading. Vintoniak, the head of the Servant of the People branch, was absent during the vote.

Protest action against the adoption of the new Civil Code, 10 May 2026, Ivano-Frankivsk

photo: Suspilne, Ivano-Frankivsk

After the vote civil society organizations launched a flash mob against the draft Civil Code, and protests took place in a number of regions. This legislative initiative collected more than 15 thousand amendments from MPs — an anti-record for all seven years of the parliament’s work.

Who and how is complicating the fight against corruption?

A year ago MPs in the Verkhovna Rada decided to eliminate the independence of the anti-corruption agencies — NABU and SAP. Vintoniak and all majoritarians from Prykarpattia, except Oksana Savchuk, voted for this issue.

As with the Civil Code, this Verkhovna Rada decision sparked protests across the country; at that time MP Virastyuk from Frankivshchyna said he did not believe it “was sincerely done by 100%.” The politician suggested that the protests were being fueled by political forces.

Protests against the Verkhovna Rada’s decision to eliminate the independence of the anti-corruption agencies NABU and SAP, summer 2025

photo: “Versii”

It is worth remembering that athlete Virastyuk, who saw a political trace in the protests, entered parliament during a by-election in one of Frankivshchyna’s constituencies, and the gap between him and his main competitor, former MP Oleksandr Shevchenko, was less than 800 votes. During the counting some ballots went missing.

After the protests and the international community’s reaction to the Verkhovna Rada’s decision to eliminate the independence of the anti-corruption agencies, parliament was forced to convene and cancel its own decision.

It should be noted that Ihor Fris not only supported the elimination of the anti-corruption agencies’ independence, he also sought to complicate the work of investigative journalists and close access to public registries — the cadastre map and registers of legal entities (draft No. 11533). Journalists from the Bihus.info project produced a report about property owned by Fris’s family, including in the region’s green zones, and a winery that is very likely registered to a front person but is managed by Fris himself.

Fris communicated his initiative to restrict access to registries as one that would enhance the security of defense enterprises. But the law would have affected not only the defense sector. It could significantly complicate journalists’ and civil society’s access to information, thereby weakening anti-corruption oversight by society.

Environment and reconstruction. How does sabotage and removal of safeguards increase corruption risks?

During the war and the upcoming reconstruction the environmental sphere remains especially vulnerable to corruption risks. This concerns the use of land and natural resources, urban planning, and implementation of large investment projects. If environmental safeguards and public oversight are weakened, the risks of nontransparent decisions favoring particular interests increase.

For Ukraine this is also a matter of fulfilling its eurointegration commitments. The first negotiation cluster — “Fundamentals” — is open, and one of the next is the “Green Agenda” cluster. Harmonizing Ukraine’s environmental legislation with European law is an integral part of its accession to the EU.

One such safeguard that could protect the environment and reduce corruption risks could have been the law “On the Emerald Network.” But Ukraine still has not adopted it. The Emerald Network is a pan-European network of particularly valuable natural territories created to protect rare species of plants and animals. Its creation and development are an international obligation for Ukraine: it is required of us, among other things, by the Bern Convention.

The relevant bill was before parliament even before the full-scale invasion — in 2021. But its consideration failed — it lacked votes. Virastyuk, Savchuk, Proshchuk and Tymofiichuk voted for this legislative initiative. Fris did not vote, although he supported agenda items before and after the “On the Emerald Network” bill. And Matusyevych simply pulled his card out during consideration of this important ecology-preservation issue.

Screenshot of Oleksandr Matusyevych’s vote for the Emerald Network. Website of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

If this bill had been supported, protecting the Carpathians would be much easier now.

It is worth adding that before becoming an MP Matusyevych worked in the forestry sector and is now a member of the ecology committee. So he should have been one of the deputies who best understand the importance of environmental legislation for the Carpathian region. Instead he became one of the authors of a bill that proposed allowing certain sanitary cuttings without a mandatory environmental impact assessment (No. 9516). The document was criticized by WWF-Ukraine, the Ukrainian Nature Conservation Group, Ecoaction, Holka and other environmental organizations. In the end parliament did not support it.

But sometimes dangerous environmental provisions are attempted not as a separate bill but “hidden” in a document that at first glance does not concern ecology at all.

That is exactly what happened with the attempt to legalize the construction of wind turbines in high mountains. An amendment was inserted into a bill concerning compensation to citizens for property destroyed or damaged by the war (draft No. 13174) that benefited an ex-regional and former MP Maksym Yefimov. He is linked to the company Vitroparky Ukraine.

That amendment was lobbied by two women MPs — Yefimov’s former colleague Antonina Slavytska (elected from the banned party OPZZh) and at the time chair of the Servant of the People party Olena Shuliak.

Ironically, when parliament considered this issue, construction of wind turbines began in the Carpathians on the Runa meadow — foundations were being laid. Despite the halted environmental impact assessment procedure, public exposure, and criminal cases for virgin forest logging, the work did not stop. Adoption of the scandalous amendment would have effectively allowed the installation of turbine foundations.

During consideration of the legislative initiative MP from Lviv region Natalia Pipa demanded the amendment be put to a vote in the Verkhovna Rada and emphasized that it was harmful. The amendment received 225 votes. Essentially, one vote was missing for the amendment to become law.

Among representatives of Ivano-Frankivsk region who voted “for” the harmful amendment were Ihor Fris, Vasyl Virastyuk, Eduard Proshchuk and Oleh Tymofiichuk.

Oleksandr Matusyevych did not participate in the vote, and Oksana Savchuk was absent.

In the context of protecting high-mountain areas from wind turbines, it is worth emphasizing that Vintoniak, head of the regional branch of Servant of the People, during an off-site committee session held in Uzhhorod in 2025, criticized the work of the State Architectural and Urban Planning Inspectorate, which granted permission to build foundations on the Runa meadow without conducting an environmental impact assessment. Vintoniak did not vote for the amendment that benefited the construction of wind power plants.

Veteran and biologist Andriy Tupikov, who collected more than 26 thousand signatures on a petition to Zelensky and called on the president to submit a bill to preserve the Carpathian high mountains from development, notes: “Using geoinformation technologies I regularly detect violations of environmental legislation. A significant part of Bukovel consists of parceled-out forest fund lands. We are talking about dozens of plots. And the dealmakers do not stop there. Now local authorities have begun allocating plots for the continuation of Bukovel — the resort-monsters Bystrytsia and Svidovets. Some of these plots are already in court cases; only this year the prosecutor’s office returned more than 20 parcels of state forest land. So initiatives like legalizing land theft — the so-called Ihor Mazepa law and the new draft Civil Code or easing clearcutting, as proposed by draft 9516 — are lobbying by those who want to see the Carpathians built up.”

Management of natural resources, land use and urban planning involve significant financial resources, and weakening environmental safeguards creates additional opportunities for nontransparent decisions and abuses. That is why during the International Conference on Ukraine’s Recovery (Ukraine Recovery Conference 2026) in Gdańsk international partners emphasized: the country’s recovery must be not only fast but also honest and environmentally sustainable. But the people’s deputies seem to try every year to find ways to bypass the demands of civil society and international partners.

In the context of transparent reconstruction rules it is worth recalling the high-profile urban planning bill — the construction “reform” (No. 5655). Its authors said the document would digitalize the construction sector and speed up the country’s recovery. At the same time the bill carried risks of creating cartel collusion and drew public criticism, and the European Parliament and the European Commission voiced their reservations.

Vintoniak, Fris, Virastyuk, Matusyevych and Proshchuk voted for the urban planning reform; Tymofiichuk did not vote. The only representative of the region who pressed the “against” button was Svoboda member Oksana Savchuk. After the bill was adopted in the second reading, citizens collected the required number of signatures for a petition calling on the president to veto the law in less than a day. The president still has not signed it after several years.

On national security issues the deputies from Frankivshchyna were generally unanimous — they supported initiatives important for the state.

Anna Levintsova, journalist of the civic initiative Holka; Oleksandra Shchukina, journalist, participant of the civic initiative Holka