Jackpot for Developers. What Members of Parliament Stuffed into the "Fish Law"

At the end of October, Volodymyr Zelensky signed the law "On Stimulating the Economic Development of the Fisheries Sector" (No.5018-IX). Ecologists called it the "fish law." Experts say the bill, which deputies had supported in the first reading, could have worsened drinking water quality and limited access to shorelines. Some of those risks were removed before the second reading, but others were written in. Now developers are happy about the "fish law": the document… writes off their debts to communities for developers' contributions.

Developers' contribution is a developer's payment to the community budget for roads, schools, kindergartens, and networks for residents of a new building. If the developer does not pay, all city residents pay for infrastructure development through their taxes.

In addition, the law allows urban planning documentation to be developed at developers' expense and gives state and municipal entities the ability to receive land plots for development without detailed territorial plans.

Amendments to the bill were submitted by Hryhoriy Mamka (Platform for Life and Peace) and the deputy head of the Servant of the People faction, Andriy Motovilovets, and the Agrarian Committee led by Oleksandr Haidu supported them. Roman Lozynskyi (Holos) tried to remove the harmful provisions in the session, but it later emerged that there were several identical amendments, and if one was voted down, another slipped into the final version. Some deputies voted for the law because they were confident that the norms promoted in the interests of developers had not been included.

Inserting provisions into a bill that are unrelated to its subject is a violation of the Rules of Procedure required by the Constitution. This has already become common practice in parliament. The most scandalous case occurred a year ago: Maksym Buzhansky (Servant of the People) submitted amendments that limited the independence of NABU and SAP to a bill on investigating disappearances of missing persons (No.12414).

Holka found out exactly what developers gained and how much this will cost communities during the war. According to preliminary expert estimates, just the written-off debts amount to 3–4 billion UAH, which were supposed to go to local budgets during the war and work, among other things, for civil security.

They forgave developers billion-hryvnia debts to local budgets

Already in the first month of its work, the Verkhovna Rada adopted the Law "On Stimulating Investment Activity in Ukraine" (132-IX) in a "runaway printer" mode. Among other things, it canceled developers' payment of developers' contributions. To somehow soften the blow to local budgets, a transitional period of 2020 year was established, during which contribution payments were set at a reduced rate – 2% of the estimated cost for residential real estate and 4% for non-residential.

The "On Stimulating Investment" law provided that those who begin construction in 2020 must within that year (but no later than commissioning) transfer the developers' contribution money to the local budget. For this, the developer was required to apply to local self-government authorities for a calculation of the corresponding payment amount within 10 working days after the start of construction of the object.

But the prescribed procedure had a significant flaw – the developer was obliged to apply for the calculation within 10 working days "after the start of construction of the object." Yet proving the start of construction is not the same as receiving a building permit, and proving that construction began is a separate problem because lawmakers did not provide a mechanism for this.

As a result, fraud began – developers in 2020 received permits and started building but did not apply for the calculation of the developers' contribution and did not pay large sums into local budgets that they were required to pay under the law. The plan was simple – commission starting from 2021, when the developers' contribution payment would already be finally canceled.

However, upon commissioning, a significant number of developers honestly indicated the construction start date in 2020 – a sort of confession. Those documents later became evidence in courts of the existence of debts to local budgets.

At first, communities tried to force developers through the courts to conclude developers' contribution agreements, but the courts refused: the article of the law that required this expired on 1 January 2020. The situation was changed by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. In December 2021 it decided that the absence of a contract does not absolve the developer from the obligation to pay if that obligation arose before the law changed, and the community can recover that money as unjust enrichment. Since then such lawsuits are often filed by the prosecutor's office in the interests of city councils.

For example, Bucha District Prosecutor's Office recovered over 4 million UAH in developers' contributions for Irpin from a residential complex developer. In that case, the Commercial Cassation Court confirmed that construction begins from the date of issuance of the permit, and if the developer did not apply for the calculation, the community can determine the amount itself. In early October 2026 the Supreme Court finally defined how to calculate such debts. And already at the end of the month they were written off… by the "fish law."

The "fish law" is not the first attempt

When developers realized that old debts to local budgets would have to be repaid, they used all their connections to write off the debts through legislative changes. The "fish law" is not the first attempt. In May this year, the Ministry for Communities, Territories and Infrastructure Development held a working meeting with representatives of the construction industry on deregulation in construction and speeding up the country's recovery. One of the discussion topics was the developers' contribution issue.

The Ministry promised that as part of revisions to the bill "On Preserving Valuable Historic Development" No.11481 it would legally stipulate that developers' contributions are not paid for objects that as of 1 January 2021 were not yet commissioned, regardless of the date of receipt of the building permit – except in cases where a developers' contribution agreement had already been concluded. But the consideration of bill No.11481, which contained quite revolutionary provisions to protect valuable historic development, dragged on. So developers' demands were pushed through via the "fish law."

The law established that developers' obligations to pay developers' contribution amounts that arose in 2020 under the "On Stimulating Investment" law are terminated. And that even enforcement documents issued on the basis of court decisions to recover developers' contribution funds should be recognized as unenforceable.

How much are we talking about?

According to the State Statistics Service, in 2020 the right to build 7.2 million m2 of apartment buildings and 3.8 million m2 of non-residential buildings was obtained. If you take data on the indirect construction cost approved by the Ministry of Regional Development in 2020, the total amount of developers' contributions from that construction should have been 3-4 billion UAH.

So deputies, in the midst of the war and with budget shortfalls in local budgets, gave a truly royal gift to private developers, effectively stealing these billions from territorial communities.

Urban planning documentation is allowed to be developed at the expense of private developers

"He who pays calls the tune" — this principle long applied to the development of detailed territorial plans at private developers' expense. Experts wrote for years about this corruption risk, but nothing changed. The scheme was removed only from the summer of 2021, establishing that urban planning documentation must be developed at the expense of the budget or technical assistance (art. 10 of the Law "On Regulation of Urban Development Activities"). The only exception was detailed plans for plots located only outside settlements.

Already during the full-scale war, the development of detailed territorial plans at private expense was temporarily allowed, but on the condition that they do not provide for new construction or reconstruction of residential real estate or public facilities (para. 912 of the Law "On Regulation of Urban Development Activities"). That created the possibility to build needed energy and industrial facilities amid local budget shortfalls while minimizing possible corruption risks.

The "fish law" established the possibility of developing any local-level urban planning documentation (comprehensive plans, master plans, detailed territorial plans) at the expense of private persons. The question of whether deputies understood the consequences of such actions is moot — they returned to the Law "On Regulation of Urban Development Activities" corruption-prone norms that they had themselves removed as corruption-prone in the early years of their term.

But that's not all about "consistency." It is worth noting that the Verkhovna Rada simultaneously gifted private developers several billion hryvnias by depriving territorial communities of the ability to recover old developers' contribution debts into local budgets, and restored the corrupt scheme of developing urban planning documentation at private developers' expense, explaining this by the lack of funds in local budgets.

State and municipal entities will be able to receive land plots for development in the absence of detailed territorial plans and without regard to the provisions of general plans of settlements

As a general rule (part 3 art. 24 of the Law "On Regulation of Urban Development Activities"), land plots of communal and state ownership are allowed to be transferred for development only if approved zoning plans or detailed territorial plans exist. This is one of the important safeguards against haphazard development and, at the same time, a mechanism for taking into account public opinion through public hearings before the corresponding urban planning documentation is approved.

But starting from 2018, exceptions were added to the law allowing this rule to be bypassed — the presence of buildings and structures on the plot, construction of energy or transport infrastructure, civil protection structures, military and defense facilities, etc. At the same time, the Land Code in part 3 art. 20 defines that for such exceptions it is possible to establish a land use designation that does not correspond to the functional purpose of the territory in comprehensive plans of territorial communities and master plans of settlements. Taken together, these norms open the possibility for chaotic development without regard to urban planning documentation requirements.

The "fish law" added another exception — state and local authorities, enterprises, institutions and organizations of communal and state ownership can receive undeveloped plots for the construction of any objects. And this creates a number of risks.

First, the risk of chaotic residential development not provided with necessary infrastructure increases significantly.

Second, corrupt schemes of residential development in partnership between municipal or state entities and private developers are already widespread. Municipal and state entities receive land plots without land auctions, after which they launch joint construction with private companies on a non-competitive basis in such a way that all profit goes to the private companies. The "fish law" makes such schemes even more effective and attractive.

Third, the government is currently trying to accelerate privatization of state enterprises. So land plots for development obtained in violation of urban planning documentation, although they should be transferred only to communal and state enterprises, will very quickly end up in the hands of private owners after privatization.

Fourth, local authorities are not innocent either. For example, the transfer of a plot for the construction of a municipal parking lot in a green zone that floods in spring in Kyiv's Obolon was illegal due to the absence of a detailed territorial plan, so there is currently an opportunity to cancel the Kyiv City Council's decision and stop the construction opposed by the public. And the construction of a municipal parking lot on Peizazhna Alley was stopped by blocking approval of the detailed territorial plan. The "fish law" completely frees local authorities' hands in such situations.

A habit of violating the Constitution in the midst of war

In addition to the general principle of the rule of law (art. 1), the Constitution contains a number of specific requirements for the actions of the Verkhovna Rada. Article 6 defines that the legislative body exercises its powers within the limits established by the Constitution and in accordance with the laws of Ukraine. Article 19 establishes that state bodies and their officials are obliged to act only on the basis of, within the powers and in the manner provided by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. And article 83 adds that the procedure of the Rada's work is established by the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure.

The Law "On the Legal Regime of Martial Law" (part 1 art. 9) additionally stipulates that in martial law conditions the president and parliament act exclusively on the basis of, within the powers and in the manner defined by the Constitution and laws. So compliance with the "Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine" in its activities is the parliament's constitutional duty, just like citizens' duty to defend Ukraine's independence and territorial integrity.

According to the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada (art. 116), proposals and amendments to a bill must correspond to the subject of legal regulation of the bill. Compliance with these requirements is extremely important in the lawmaking process. It helps avoid both fraud and ordinary mistakes, since the procedure established by the Rules of Procedure provides for a series of procedures (counter-expertise by the profile Committee, scientific-expert analysis, etc.) only for the first-reading text, and the NACP is not obliged to study bills in the second-reading edition.

But violations of these requirements have become commonplace and constantly occur both to push through various corruption-prone changes in legislation and as bribes to certain groups to collect votes in support of other bills needed by the authorities.

As you may have guessed, the changes to the Law "On Regulation of Urban Development Activities" described above in the "fish law," adopted in the first reading, were not foreseen, and the relevant amendments have nothing to do with stimulating the economic development of the fisheries sector.

That the bill prepared for the repeated second reading violates art. 116 of the Rules of Procedure was not a secret to deputies; this was noted in the comments of the Main Legal Department. But the situation is rather unique — at least some deputies who supported the bill could have been confident that the relevant provisions were excluded and that no violations remained.

During the session hall consideration, deputy Roman Lozynskyi put forward for confirmation amendment No.1030 of Hryhoriy Mamka, supported by the Committee on Agrarian and Land Policy. The amendment did not receive votes, which means its provisions were excluded from the bill text. But in fact there were two virtually identical amendments — No.1223 from Andriy Motovilovets, editorially accounted for by the Committee, which Lozynskyi did not notice and did not put up for confirmation. As a result, the final text of the bill did not change, but some deputies, including Lozynskyi himself, quite likely did not know this.

Let's summarize

Through the Verkhovna Rada they successfully pushed through, in violation of the Constitution and several laws, an extremely harmful deal for the country. And none of the safeguards worked.

The scheme should have been stopped at an early stage by the Committee on Agrarian and Land Policy headed by Oleksandr Haidu. But it supported Mamka's and Motovilovets' knowingly illegal amendments. In the session hall, the scheme should have been stopped by Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk, who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Rules of Procedure during meetings. But he did not fulfill his duty. And the guarantor of the Constitution often turns a blind eye to the parliament's unconstitutional antics.

Individual deputies who were ready to fight were simply drowned in the amendment spam they themselves created — before the repeated second reading of the "fish law" bill, 2,5 thousand proposals and amendments were submitted, and the comparative table grew to almost a thousand pages.

Heorhiy Mohylnyi, analyst at the civic initiative Holka