The second presentation of the interim Shadow Report: the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, together with a coalition of civil society organisations, presented the findings of its monitoring under the ‘Functioning of Democratic Institutions’ area of the ‘Fundamentals’ cluster. It covers Parliament, European integration, elections, civil society, governance and multi-level governance. The report sets out the current state of play, the progress of reforms in this area, and recommendations from experts at the organisations concerned.

Experts of the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, Civil Network OPORA and the Centre for Democracy and Rule of Law shared their work. The presentation was joined by representatives of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Enlargement and Eastern Neighbourhood (DG ENEST), which is responsible for enlargement and EU accession negotiations with candidate countries and potential candidates.

Oleksandr Zaslavskyi, Deputy Executive Director for Analytical Work at ALI, congratulated the coalition partners and the EU representatives on the opening of the ‘Fundamentals’ cluster for Ukraine.

Under the ‘Parliament’ section, participants discussed the challenges and recommendations relating to parliamentary reform, the autonomy of the Verkhovna Rada, the legislative process and related matters. The expert noted that, since the start of the full-scale invasion, the Verkhovna Rada has remained functional and legitimate, and that during the first session under martial law parliamentarians passed 258 laws — the largest number of laws adopted in a single session in the history of the Ukrainian parliament.

The presentation also addressed Ukraine’s progress on the European integration track, in particular the planning and development of law-making, policy implementation, and the monitoring of the changes introduced.

One of the significant achievements in this area has been the approval of the National Programme for the Adaptation of Ukrainian Legislation to European Union Law. It is now important to enshrine in law the status and binding nature of the National Programme, and to align it with the Verkhovna Rada’s legislative work plan.

During the presentation of the ‘Governance’ section, Oleksandr Zaslavskyi described the current situation — namely the structural and staffing changes in the Ukrainian Government, the challenges in its interaction with the Verkhovna Rada, and the planning of government activity, particularly with regard to fulfilling international commitments.

On multi-level governance, Volodymyr Skrypets noted that the European integration processes are continuing in this area too: in December 2025 the Government adopted Resolution No. 1748, ‘Certain Issues of Reforming Local Self-Government and the Territorial Organisation of Power under Martial Law and in Preparation for Ukraine’s Accession to the European Union’. However, under conditions of full-scale war, the problems that come to the fore are those linked to the depopulation of Ukrainian communities, the falling number of local council deputies, and the attraction of investment at the local level, including the implementation of the State Strategy for Regional Development.

As a reminder, the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, together with a coalition of civil society organisations, previously presented to the European Commission the interim findings of this year’s Shadow Report under Chapter 23 ‘Judiciary and Fundamental Rights’ and Chapter 24 ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’.

For the third year running, the coalition of civil society organisations coordinated by ALI has been monitoring and assessing Ukraine’s progress on European integration. This is an independent, alternative analysis by representatives of civil society and the expert community, coordinated by ALI. The coalition comprises experts from the Agency for Legislative Initiatives, Transparency International Ukraine, the Human Rights Centre ZMINA, Tomorrow’s Lawyer, Europe without Barriers, the Ukrainian Bar Association, Civil Network OPORA and the Centre for Democracy and Rule of Law, with media support from European Pravda.

As has become customary, the new Shadow Report will be published ahead of the European Commission’s report on Ukraine’s progress within the European Union Enlargement Package in 2026.

The Shadow Report is a systematic audit by sector experts from civil society organisations. It does not duplicate the state’s official documents or the European Commission’s assessments and is not dependent on their positions. Rather, it is an analytical tool for developing a professional and comprehensive understanding of European integration processes, one that involves experts in the reform process. At the same time, it assesses how far Ukrainian legislation and the system as a whole conform to EU standards.

Producing shadow reports is a regular practice for all candidate countries seeking to join the European Union. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, North Macedonia and Moldova, independent coalitions of civil society organisations have for years carried out alternative monitoring of reform progress in areas such as the rule of law and the functioning of democratic institutions. In Ukraine, this work has been carried out systematically since 2024, when a coalition of civil society organisations first prepared an alternative analysis to accompany the European Commission’s report on Ukraine’s progress within the European Union Enlargement Package.

The Shadow Report is entirely a product of civil society, regardless of its sources of support. To strengthen the institutional independence of the process, from 2026 ALI is establishing a new trend: the Shadow Report is also financed by independent civil society organisations. A significant share of the funding for its development will be covered by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives and Transparency International Ukraine. ALI takes on the mission of ensuring the maximum impartiality and objectivity of this preparation process, as it does every year.

The 14th session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is far from the strongest in the ninth convocation in terms of quantitative performance — as evidenced by data from the parliamentary Monitoring conducted by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives. This is not about a single unsuccessful week or a few failed votes. It reflects systemic problems in the work of the Verkhovna Rada, confirmed by a combination of indicators and data.

The parliamentary crisis has already been widely discussed. MPs themselves are also speaking about it. Andrii Motovylovets, First Deputy Head of the ‘Servant of the People’ faction, stated that it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure votes for draft laws required for budget formation and the fulfilment of international obligations. Moreover, according to him, around 40 MPs are ready to resign their mandates — approximately 10% of the total composition of Parliament.

Let us compare the figures with the realities described by MPs themselves and consider how Parliament can overcome this crisis and restore its lost pace of work.

The Ukrainian Parliament is not paralysed, but its effectiveness has noticeably declined. Committees, Temporary Investigative Commissions (TICs) and plenary sessions are held regularly. Decisions are still adopted. So where, and how, does the crisis manifest itself?

1. Slow pace. On average, it takes Parliament 382 days to adopt a law at second reading — the slowest rate of the entire ninth convocation. 
2. Low-priority initiatives. A significant share of adopted laws consists of ratifications and minor amendments, while key European integration legislation has not progressed — only two European integration laws have secured sufficient votes. 
3. A sharp decline in output. Between September 2025 and February 2026, the Verkhovna Rada adopted only 63 laws — the lowest figure of the entire ninth convocation. This is four times less than during its most productive period, when Parliament adopted 229 laws between February and August 2022.

If such a pace continues, Ukraine may end up celebrating its accession to the EU alongside the beginning of the 22nd century (assuming accession takes place only after all European integration laws are adopted). This is how long — 75 years — it would take to pass all 300 European integration draft laws referred to by Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Taras Kachka. (If two such laws are adopted per session, which lasts half a year, this results in four laws per year. 300/4 = 75. These calculations do not  account for the likely expansion of the acquis communautaire.)

Such a pace appears particularly striking given that the first 100 days of the new Government fell in autumn 2025 — a period when the Cabinet of Ministers would be expected to operate at peak intensity, including, for example, approving its Programme of Activities.

Why has this crisis emerged? In numerous interviews with various media outlets, MPs point to a range of factors:

• lack of communication between Parliament and the Government, as well as within the mono-majority;
• backlash over ‘Mindichgate’ and its consequences;  
• internal conflicts;
• developments surrounding NABU/SAPO;
• as well as a series of notices of suspicion issued to MPs by anti-corruption bodies.

What can be stated with confidence is that this crisis began in the summer, not in the winter — this is clearly reflected in the data.

Talk of EU accession in 2027, international support linked to meeting structural benchmarks set by the International Monetary Fund, as well as compliance with the Ukraine Facility Plan, can all be set aside unless the situation changes (that is, unless the Verkhovna Rada begins adopting the laws envisaged by the Ukraine Facility Plan and required for Ukraine’s accession to the EU).

There is no alternative to the Verkhovna Rada in this process. Neither the Cabinet of Ministers nor the President has the authority to adopt laws. Yet it is precisely legislation that is required — both for European integration and for securing financing under the ‘funding in exchange for reforms’ model. Without it, Ukraine will struggle to finance even the most critical budget items, such as defence expenditure, let alone programmes such as national cashback schemes.

A functioning Parliament is essential for maintaining democratic order and the trust of international partners. While criticism of the Verkhovna Rada’s low productivity is justified, undermining the institution itself is dangerous.

Even a weakened Parliament is preferable to an institutional vacuum. An empty Verkhovna Rada will not pass a budget or adopt laws. Nor is it desirable to imagine a scenario in which someone decides to dissolve Parliament and assume its powers. It is better not to describe in detail a sequence of events involving a coup d’état, a cascading collapse of state institutions, the spectre of a Libya-style civil war, or a rapid occupation of Ukrainian territory…

The good news is that the Verkhovna Rada still has 393 sitting MPs, full legitimacy and even a formally existing coalition (a parliamentary faction in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine that holds the rights of a coalition of parliamentary factions). Parliament can still be revitalised.

All scenarios for overcoming the crisis share one common element — restoring dialogue within the Parliament – Government – President triangle. The question is how exactly this can be achieved.

The first scenario is the formation of a national unity coalition, which was discussed in 2022 and could improve the situation in 2026. What was previously seen as a ‘desirable option’ is now becoming a practical necessity due to the lack of votes. This scenario may be complemented by a reconfiguration of the Government, the adoption of compromise draft laws and the signing of a formal coalition agreement. However, it requires genuine dialogue and mutual concessions involving parliamentary minority factions and groups.

The second scenario is to improve interaction between the current Government and Parliament. MPs point to:

• chaotic communication;
• lack of accountability;
• exclusion from decision-making processes.

These issues could be addressed by the Cabinet of Ministers led by Yuliia Svyrydenko, provided it finds effective ways of engaging with the Verkhovna Rada.

The third scenario is a reconfiguration of the Government. If the root cause of the crisis lies in poor communication between the Government and Parliament and the current Cabinet is unable to improve it, it may be worth giving a new one a chance. Formally, this step could be taken by the Servant of the People faction alone, although securing support from other factions appears more realistic. A key principle in this process should be ensuring that Parliament has a genuine influence over the selection of ministerial candidates — this would shape MPs’ attitudes towards the new Government.

The fourth scenario is to restore internal dialogue within Parliament. This could lead to mutual support for draft laws (so-called logrolling). It could also result in a review of MPs’ remuneration (if the issue indeed lies in the removal of informal top-up payments, as suggested by journalists). Alternatively, it may expand the scope of consensus voting — as is currently the case with votes on decrees extending martial law and mobilisation.

These scenarios may appear difficult to implement, but the alternative should not be overlooked — further deterioration during wartime could ultimately threaten statehood. Ultimately, overcoming the parliamentary crisis is possible. There are grounds for cautious optimism in the experience of the Verkhovna Rada two years ago (autumn 2023). At that time, the situation was similar: during the 10th session, Parliament adopted only 64 laws, of which just four were related to European integration. Yet by spring 2024, the situation had improved — albeit not as significantly as one might have hoped. Perhaps the desired progress can be achieved in 2026.

Experts in governance, the rule of law, anti-corruption, and electoral processes joined the discussion. Participants discussed medium-term tendencies, potential avenues for Canada to support reforms, and opportunities for Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction.

Close attention was drawn to the work of the Ukrainian Parliament. Oleksandr Zaslavskyi, the ALI’s Deputy Executive Director for Analytics, referred to the parliamentary Monitoring report for the 14th session when analysing trends in the Verkhovna Rada’s activity and the challenges it is currently experiencing. The expert highlighted institutional fatigue as one of the reasons for the recent decline in legislative output, adding that the 9th convocation is the longest in the Verkhovna Rada’s history. Other factors influencing this decline include issues surrounding NABU and SAPO, as well as other corruption scandals and internal conflicts. 

Oleksandr Zaslavskyi remarked that the slowdown in Parliament’s work is affecting the implementation of necessary reforms, notably the adoption of EU-related legislation. If Ukraine is to join the European Union by 2027, the passage of all the necessary regulations requires greater attention and a steady pace. 

For Oleksandr Zaslavskyi, an active civil society carries on playing a vital role in developing state institutions and national identity. However, he also raised particular concerns about troubling tendencies within civil society. Civil society organisations often find themselves having to work in place of institutions, rather than alongside them. In the long term, this will inevitably undermine their capacity, says Oleksandr Zaslavskyi. Therefore, it would be wise for civil society organisations to focus on approaches that engage institutions, public officials and decision-makers as deeply as possible in their work. This will empower us to preserve and reinforce the functioning of state institutions, especially those overseeing European integration. 

The Agency for Legislative Initiatives systematically supports and actively contributes to Ukraine’s European integration. As part of this effort, together with the International Renaissance Foundation, we are launching the IntehRada project. Building on sectoral analysis, the project aims to enhance awareness among international partners and Ukrainian MPs of the legislative changes and reforms that Ukraine needs to implement on its path to EU membership. Without a clear understanding of the specific political and procedural challenges faced by draft laws as they move through Parliament, it is extremely difficult to reinvigorate this process. The same applies to securing support — both externally, from EU Member States, and internally, within Parliament.

The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine plays a crucial role in the European integration process by considering and adopting the necessary legislation. However, since obtaining EU candidate status, Ukraine has gradually experienced a slowdown in the development, consideration and adoption of EU-related draft laws: 2025 showed a decline in the pace of legislative European integration compared to previous years.

To accelerate progress in this area and ensure sustainable results, the ALI will produce three types of regular information briefs under the project:

1. briefs on specific EU integration laws;
2. briefs on broader challenges of the European integration track, focusing on procedural and institutional dimensions;
3. briefs for Members of Parliament of Ukraine on priority EU integration draft laws (based on strategic planning documents, such as the Ukraine Facility Plan or the legislative work plan) for the upcoming month.

Ukraine’s accession to the EU also depends on the positions of EU Member States, which are not always unanimous in their support for Ukraine. However, the Verkhovna Rada can influence these positions — in particular, through interparliamentary friendship groups. Accordingly, another strand of the project will focus on analysing the work of these groups. Strengthening the effectiveness of parliamentary diplomacy tools (including friendship groups) will enable Ukraine to better substantiate its positions, explain the current context and shape realistic expectations.

We are confident that this approach will help draw the attention of international partners to challenges within the legislative European integration track and serve as an impetus for addressing them. In the longer term, it will contribute to steady progress in European integration through the consistent functioning of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

The IntehRada project is implemented with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation. The project reflects the position of the ALI and does not necessarily represent the position of the Foundation.

During the 14th session, 7 ‘Government Question Hours’ were held — in total, MPs and ministers spent more than 8 hours asking questions and providing answers.

The largest number of questions raised by MPs concerned the implementation of state social policy under martial law and the fulfilment of Ukraine’s European integration commitments.

Members of Parliament terminated the activities of 8 temporary commissions and established 5 temporary investigative commissions.

During the 14th session, MPs submitted 218 parliamentary questions — almost half as many as during the 13th session, and on a par with the 10th session. All inquiries addressed to the President concerned the conferment of titles.

‘Government Question Hour’ is an instrument of parliamentary oversight through which Members of Parliament may ask questions to members of the Cabinet of Ministers on a defined topic and receive answers. During the ‘Government Question Hour’, only issues related to the designated topic may be raised. As a rule, responses are delivered from the rostrum by the minister responsible for the relevant area, although questions may also be addressed to the Prime Minister and other ministers. 

During the 14th sessionMPs may often yield the floor to another MP during the Government Question Hour to ask a question. Therefore, remarks by MPs lasting less than 10 seconds were removed from the data, as these were most likely such transfers of the floor., 7 ‘Government Question Hours’ were held — in total, MPs and ministers spent more than eight hours asking questions and receiving answers.

MPs may ask several questions during a single intervention, while ministers may respond to several questions, or several ministers may respond to a single question. Considering these features of the ‘Government Question Hours’, the data obtained illustrate MPs’ interest in particular topics or even specific ministers. 

Compared to the 13th session, the data on the ‘Government Question Hours’ demonstrate a decrease in MPs’ activity, which is generally consistent with the overall trends of this session. 

*It should be noted that the ‘Government Question Hour’ is divided into two parts: 1) questions from parliamentary factions (parliamentary groups) to members of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and responses thereto; 2) questions from Members of Parliament to members of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and responses thereto — up to 30 minutes. 

As in previous sessions, the largest number of questions (interventions) came from the Servant of the People faction — its representatives accounted for almost one third of all questions.

During the 14th session, questions from Members of Parliament were most frequently answered by the Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yuliia Svyrydenko, and the Minister of Education and Science, Oksen Lisovyi. This distribution is expected, given the role of the Prime Minister in coordinating the activities of the Cabinet of Ministers and the fact that the Minister of Education served as the main speaker during the ‘Government Question Hours’. 

The Verkhovna Rada may establish temporary bodies: temporary special commissions and temporary investigative commissions, which are formed for a period not exceeding one year. During the 14th session, the Parliament voted to establish five temporary investigative commissions and terminated the activities of eight temporary commissions (of which five were special commissions). Their list is provided in Annex 7.

Members of Parliament have the right to submit parliamentary inquiries and MPs’ appealsSince MPs’ appeals do not require announcement at a plenary sitting and there is no information about their registration, which complicates data collection, they are not the subject of this monitoring.. The former constitute a requirement by an MP to provide an official response on matters within the competence of a body or institution, while the latter constitute a request to provide an official clarification or present a position on matters within the competence of a body or institution.

During the 14th session, MPs submitted 218 parliamentary inquiries — almost twice fewer than during the 13th session and at the level of the 9th session. All parliamentary inquiries addressed to the President concernedThe conferral of titles and awards falls within the powers of the President; therefore, a parliamentary inquiry addressed to the President regarding the awarding of service members and other individuals (most often with the title of Hero of Ukraine) has become one of the instruments for recognising the contribution of service members, alongside citizens’ appeals and electronic petitions. the conferment of titles.

The decrease in the number of submitted parliamentary inquiries, as well as the number of ‘Government Question Hours’ held and MPs’ activity during them, confirms the conclusion that the 14th session is one of the slowest and least active sessions since the beginning of the full-scale invasion.

During the 14th session, the share of violations of the Rules of Procedure in the adoption of laws amounted to 38%, which is 30% lower than during the previous session.

The share of violations at the second reading of draft laws decreased by half compared to the 13th session.

The overall share of violations of the constitutional time limit (15 days) for the signing of laws by the President during the 14th session again amounted to 44%. The time limit for signing (or submitting proposals) was violated for 20 laws, while another 8 laws were neither signed nor vetoed.

The volume of violations of the legislative procedure during the 14th session decreased significantly and almost reached the level observed before the full-scale invasion. The overall share of draft laws adopted with violations is lower than during all other sessions under martial law, due to the significant decrease in violations at the second reading.

This section provides information on violations of the Rules of Procedure during the 14th session.

The 14th session demonstrated a decrease in the share of violations across all categories. During the 14th session, approximately 38% (more than one third) of laws were adopted with violations of consideration procedures, compared to 68% during the 13th session.

During the 14th session, the dynamics of the frequency of violations of the Rules of Procedure are similar for both the first and second readings. For the first reading, the share of violations decreased compared to the 13th session. Overall, the share of violations of the Rules of Procedure at the first reading has continued to decline since the 11th session.

Since the 9th session, the share of violations at the second reading had been increasing. During the 14th session, however, the share of violations of the Rules of Procedure at the second reading decreased almost twofold across all three types of violations monitored for the second reading.

These are among the lowest indicators for the entire IX convocation. The volume of violations at both the first and second readings continues to gradually approach the levels observed before the full-scale invasion.

In the charts and table, data on the share of draft laws adopted with specific types of violations of the Rules of Procedure are presented by session.

*The Rules of Procedure of the VRU do not contain a direct and clear requirement regarding the mandatory nature of opinions of the MSED. Alongside Article 103(4), which provides that in the absence of opinions within 14 days there are deemed to be no comments, there are also provisions requiring MSED opinions:

1. Article 112 establishes that accompanying documents to a draft law shall be provided to MPs no later than seven days before the day of consideration of the draft law at a plenary sitting of the Verkhovna Rada.
2. Article 99(2)(3) provides that expert opinions on a draft law form part of the accompanying documents.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the Rules of Procedure of the VRU are imperfect and contain contradictory provisions. For example, the MSED may provide an opinion after the 14-day deadline (due to workload), and in such a case it is unclear what the main committee should do — treat the absence of timely opinions as meaning there are no comments or consider the comments submitted after the deadline. 

**The opinion of the MLD was absent for the draft state budget, but this was not considered a violation due to the established practice of the absence of MLD opinions on budgets in different years.

In addition to standard violations of the Rules of Procedure, monitoring was carried out of violations of the Constitution related to breaches of the 15-day time limit for the signing of adopted laws by the President (Article 94 of the Constitution). The monitoring covered 63 laws adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine during the 14th session. The time limit for signing (or submitting proposals) was violated for 20 laws, i.e. in 32% of cases (compared to 43% during the 13th session). In addition, a further 8 laws were neither signed by the President, nor vetoed, nor accompanied by proposals (although the deadline for their signing had already expired). If all violations are combined, this amounts to 44% of all laws adopted during the 14th session, which is lower than the results of the 13th session (47%). Thus, almost half of all laws adopted during the 14th session involved violations of the time limits established by the Constitution of Ukraine.

Of course, the extent of the delay — whether 2 days or 102 days — does not change the fact that both constitute a violation. If one considers the most extreme cases, the longest recorded time for signing was 83 days.

Violations of the constitutional procedure began to increase with the introduction of martial law. The 11th and 13th sessions recorded the highest number of such violations, while the 12th and 14th sessions showed only a slight decrease. However, it is premature to conclude that the trend has changed. Despite significant improvements in the process of adopting laws, the timeframes for signing remain a major issue. These violations also cannot be explained byAccording to the Constitution of Ukraine, the President has 15 days to sign a law and officially promulgate it, or to return it with his reasoned and formulated proposals to Parliament. At the decision of the President, the Government organises an expert review of the law submitted for signature. According to the Rules of Procedure of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Government has a maximum of seven days to submit its proposals regarding the signing of the law by the President or reasoned and substantiated proposals on the expediency of the President exercising the right of veto. The time spent on preparing generalised comments and proposals depends both on the scope and complexity of the law and on other factors — the day of the week and time when the copy of the law was received, the number of ministries involved in the review, differences in their positions regarding the adopted law, internal bureaucratic procedures in the ministries, technical reasons, etc. Any combination of these factors may delay the Government’s submission of proposals on the law and, accordingly, the President’s decision to sign the law or return it to Parliament. deficiencies in the regulatory or procedural framework, as the relevant provisions have not changed.

During the 14th session, the President, within the established 15-day time limit (i.e. without violation), vetoed one draft law and submitted his proposals. The draft law had been initiated by representatives of the Servant of the People faction, which suggests that, in this case, the positions of the initiators and the President were not aligned or that the draft law was technically flawed. The Verkhovna Rada has not yet considered this draft law.

• The most heavily burdened committees are the Committee on Economic Development (34 opinions), the Committee on Finance (25 opinions), the Committee on National Security and the Committee on Social Policy (24 opinions each).
• In terms of the number of draft laws per MP, two committees had the highest workload during the 14th session — the Committee on Economic Development and the Committee on Social Policy. Both committees account for more than 2 assigned draft laws and provided opinions per MP. In nine committees, the workload (number of provided opinions) does not exceed 0.5 per MP.

During the 14th session, committees of the Verkhovna Rada continued to operate in conditions of a slight decrease in the number of registered draft laws compared to the 12th session. The total number of provided opinions decreased to 260, which is 32 fewer than during the corresponding 12th session. The uneven distribution of workload among committee members, which in some cases differs by as much as 17 times, raises the issue of redistributing responsibilities or revising the composition of MPs and secretariat staff within committees.

Information on the timeframes for the provision of committee opinions is presented in the section on the speed of passage of draft laws.

During the 14th session, 38 opinions of main committees recommending the rejection of draft laws were prepared. Opinions recommending rejection may indicate both the political alignment of committees and the level (at least minimal) of the quality of draft law preparation. At the same time, as during the 11th session, two-thirds of the rejected draft laws are alternative draft laws. Presidential draft laws appear to meet both criteria, as none received opinions recommending rejection (it should be noted, however, that the number of presidential draft laws was limited and they are often ratifications and decrees). Government draft laws also appear largely unproblematic: during the 14th session, they did not receive any opinions recommending rejection. Most rejection opinions were issued for draft laws initiated by MPs from the Servant of the People faction, which is logical given the number of MPs and their legislative activity. 

When assessing committee workload, it should be borne in mind that this monitoring primarily calculates workload based on the number of opinions by main committees. This method is used due to data availability (open data format). Information on the opinions of main committees is consistently available on the website of the Verkhovna Rada, is regularly updated and covers all such opinions. At the same time, committees perform many other functions and tasks beyond providing opinions as main committees. Three committeesBudget Committee, Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy, Committee on European Integration. are required to provide mandatory opinions on all draft laws; committees may also be tasked with preparing opinions as supporting committees; they consider and adopt decisions within the framework of the oversight function; review letters and appeals; and organise conferences, round tables and other events. These limitations should be considered when reviewing the information presented below, which is based on the opinions of main committees. 

The presented chart includes two indicators. First, it shows the number of opinionsThe number of opinions does not correspond to the number of draft laws considered. A committee may provide several opinions on a single draft law, for example: an opinion on inclusion in the agenda, opinions for the first and second readings, for repeated readings, or on revised versions of the draft law, etc. provided by the main committees. The second indicator reflects the number of draft laws assigned to each committee as the main committee in accordance with its remit. Together, these indicators illustrate the distribution of legislative work related to the preliminary consideration of draft laws.

The highest workload in terms of the number of opinions (34) falls on the Committee on Economic Development. Three other committees also demonstrate a relatively high workload (compared to other committees): the Committee on Finance (25 opinions), the Committee on National Security and the Committee on Social Policy (24 opinions each). While the Committee on Economic Development was not among the leaders in terms of the number of provided opinions in recent sessions, for the other committees, this distribution is relatively typical for the last seven sessions under martial law (7th–13th sessions).

The total number of opinions decreased to 260, which is 32 fewer than the number provided by committees during the corresponding 12th session.

The largest decreases (compared to the corresponding 12th session) in the number of opinions provided during the 14th session were recorded by the Committee on Legal Policy (−32 opinions) and the Committee on Law Enforcement (−29 opinions).

At the same time, for some committees, the number of opinions increased compared to the 12th session. In particular, the largest increase was recorded by the Committee on Economic Development (+18 opinions).

The number of draft laws assigned to committees, as compared to the 12th session, changed within a range from −28 to +15 assigned draft laws.

The potential workload (i.e. the number of assigned draft laws) of committees during the 14th session decreased most significantly (as compared to the 12th session) for the same committees that also experienced a decrease in actual workload: the Committee on Legal Policy (−28 assigned draft laws) and the Committee on Law Enforcement (−27 assigned draft laws).

At the same time, the potential workload increased most significantly for the Budget Committee (+15 assigned draft laws) and the Committee on Social Policy (+10 assigned draft laws).

Another dimension of committee workload is illustrated by the chart above, which shows how many opinions or registered draft laws fall per MPNumber of MPs at the end of the 14th session; during the 14th session the number of MPs in committees changed. who is a member of a committee. A high workload (where the number of assigned draft laws and provided opinions exceeds 2 per MP) during the 14th session is observed only in one committee — the Committee on Social Policy (5.1 draft laws per MP and 2.4 opinions per MP). Two other committees (the Committee on Economic Development and the Committee on EU Integration) have a workload exceeding 1.5 opinions and draft laws per MP.

In nine committees, the number of provided opinions per MP does not reach 0.5 (during the 12th session, this indicator also did not reach 0.5 for nine committees). The lowest number of provided opinions per MP is recorded for the Budget Committee (0.14 opinions per MP) and the Committee on Agrarian Policy (0.23 opinions per MP). Three other committees, despite having assigned draft laws, did not provide any opinions.

When comparing the 14th session with the corresponding 12th session, a noticeable difference in workload can be observed, as the difference in the number of provided opinions per MP ranges from −1.78 to +1.43. The number of assigned draft laws also varies significantly — within the range from −1.56 to +1.

The actual workload (i.e. the number of provided opinions per MP) decreased the most for the Committee on Legal Policy (−1.89 opinions per MP) and the Committee on Law Enforcement (−1.32 opinions per MP). The largest increase in actual workload was recorded for the Committee on Economic Development (+1.43 opinions per MP).

The potential workload decreased the most (compared to the 12th session) for the Committee on Legal Policy (−1.56 assigned draft laws per MP) and the Committee on Law Enforcement (−1.23 draft laws per MP). At the same time, the largest increase in potential workload was recorded for the Committee on EU Integration (+0.88 assigned draft laws per MP) and the Committee on Social Policy (+1 assigned draft law per MP).

Overall, the trends in actual and potential workload per committee member correspond to the general data on committee workload.

When comparing the least and most heavily burdened committees, their workload differs by a factor of 17. This situation observed during the 14th session, as well as persistent trends in committee workload across sessions, raises the issue of redistributing either MPs or the areas of competence among committees.

During the 14th session, a total of 48 hours was spent on the consideration of draft laws in the session hall, which is the lowest figure for the 9th–14th sessions of the IX convocation.

7.4% of plenary time during the 14th session was spent on the consideration of draft laws initiated by actors outside the governing majority.

Draft laws for which both readings took place during the 14th session demonstrate the highest average and median consideration time indicators for the entire period of the IX convocation.

Overall, draft laws were discussed significantly longer than during other sessions; however, the record-low amount of plenary time is explained by the relatively small number of adopted draft laws.

For the calculation of plenary time indicators, only the time spent on the consideration of draft laws was used. Time for registration, announcements of inquiries, the ‘Government Question Hour’, resolutions and other matters was not considered.

During the 14th session, Members of Parliament spent almost 48 hours of plenary time on the consideration of draft laws. This constitutes a new negative record for the Verkhovna Rada, as it is the lowest amount of time spent on the discussion of draft laws for the period of the 9th–14th sessions. It may also indicate a possible end to the trend of increasing plenary time expenditure, which began during the 9th session.

During the 14th session, 92.6% of plenary time was devoted to the consideration of draft laws initiated by the governing actors — the Servant of the People faction, the Government and the President. This is a fairly typical situation for recent sessions, as this figure usually exceeds 90%.

The 14th session of the Verkhovna Rada demonstrates a further increase in both the average and median time spent on the discussion of draft laws compared to previous sessions. The average and median consideration time represent the second-highest indicators for the IX convocation and the highest for the period of the full-scale invasion. This indicates a continuation of the trend towards longer consideration of draft laws. For 70% of draft laws adopted at the first reading and in their entirety, the amount of plenary time spent increased, although the average time remains slightly lower than the peak value of the 6th session (701 seconds). These data demonstrate a return to the pre-war format of draft law consideration. 

Draft laws considered only in the second reading during the 14th session were discussed in the session hall twice as long as during the previous three sessions and even exceeded the indicators of some pre-war sessions. For 80% of draft laws adopted at the second reading and in their entirety (where the first reading took place before the 14th session), plenary time increased. 

Draft laws for which both readings took place during the 14th session were considered, on average, for the longest time across the entire IX convocation. The average consideration time amounted to approximately 123 minutes, while the median was 40 minutes. This indicates a significant increase in time, partly driven by the lengthy consideration of the State Budget for 2026, which in total amounted to almost 12 hours. Thus, in terms of the format of draft law consideration in the session hall, the 14th session significantly exceeded the indicators of pre-war sessions. For 100% of draft laws, plenary time for both readings increased compared to the 13th session.

The five draft laws with the longest consideration time in the plenary hall are presented in Annex 6. 

47.6% of draft laws were adopted after the first reading, while 52.4% were adopted after the second reading; the third reading was not applied.

Only 3 out of the 63 laws adopted during the 14th session were registered before 24 February 2022, indicating the dominance of the martial law agenda. 

Main timeframes for the passage of draft laws (average values):

• from registration to adoption in the first reading and in entirety — 63 days;
• between the first reading and adoption in the second reading and in entirety — 264 days;
• from registration to adoption in the second reading and in entirety — 382 days.

The timeframes for the passage of draft laws set three record-high slowest values.

The average time from registration to adoption of draft laws at the second reading is 382 days — the highest for the period from the 4th to the 14th sessions. In other words, on average, the Verkhovna Rada requires more than one year to adopt a draft law in the second reading. Given that two-thirds of the adopted draft laws were registered during the 13th and 14th sessions, this indicates a slowdown in the Parliament’s legislative activity.

The other two records are also related to the adoption of draft laws at the second reading and concern MPs’ initiatives. Draft laws initiated by MPs have the highest average number of days from registration to adoption at the second reading and in its entirety (433 days), as well as from adoption at the first reading to adoption at the second reading and in its entirety (308 days), for the period from the 4th to the 14th sessions of the IX convocation.

1. 30 — adopted in their entirety after the first reading (47.6%);
2. 33 — adopted in their entirety after the second reading (52.4%);
3. 0 — adopted in their entirety after the third reading (0%).

The 14th session disrupted the previous trend in the distribution of adopted laws by stage of reading. While in previous sessions almost two-thirds of laws were adopted at the second reading and in their entirety, during the 14th session the distribution of laws adopted in their entirety at the first and second readings became nearly equal: 47.6% and 52.4%, respectively. A similar situation was observed during the 3rd, 4th and 7th sessions (the first six months of the war). The trend of not applying the third reading remained unchanged — no draft law passed through three readingsAccording to Article 1(102) of the Rules of Procedure, ‘draft laws shall be considered by the Verkhovna
Rada, as a rule, according to the procedure of three readings’.. It should be recalled that two readings allow for better preparation of a draft law and for correcting shortcomings and errors identified during the first reading. However, two readings also require more time.

When reviewing the information on committees, it should be borne in mind that this monitoring report is based on the number of opinions of the main committees. These methods are used due to the availability of data. Specifically, information on the opinions of the main committees is constantly available on the website of the Verkhovna Rada, is regularly updated and covers all opinions of the main committees. However, committees, of course, perform many other functions and tasks in addition to providing opinions of the main committees. Three committeesThe Budget Committee, the Committee on Anti-Corruption Policy and the Committee on Ukraine’s Integration into the European Union. are required to provide mandatory opinions on all draft laws; committees may also be tasked with preparing opinions as auxiliary committees; committees consider and make decisions within the framework of the oversight function; they review letters and appeals and hold conferences and round tables. However, all this information is published only in fragments and therefore cannot be used for the purposes of regular monitoring. If such information is available in a form acceptable for systemic monitoring, it is used. These limitations should be considered when reviewing the information below, which is based on the opinions of the main committees. 

The timing of the main committees’ opinions on draft lawsThe data presented relate only to cases where opinions were provided. The time between the date of draft law registration and the date of submission of the first opinion by the main committee was calculated, including opinions on inclusion in the agenda. This type of opinion was taken into account, as the committee often considers draft laws on their merits during preliminary processing. allows for the assessment of several important indicators. In terms of committees, the time from registration to the submission of the first opinion by the committee characterises the workload of the committees and enables a general forecast of the speed of preliminary processing of a given draft law, depending on its main committee. In terms of initiators, the time of submitting opinions characterises the commitment of committee members to a particular initiator and enhances the predictive capacity of the speed of preliminary processing. Finally, the time required to receive the main committee’s first opinion, together with the data on the overall passage of draft laws, makes it possible to better understand the overall dynamics of the passage of draft laws.

On average, the committees provided their opinions for the first reading in 101 days, and half of all opinions were provided within 43 days.

The speed of providing opinions varies significantly depending on the committee, in some cases reaching almost a fiftyfold difference. When comparing the indicators of the 14th session with those of the previous 13th session, the average timeIf during the 13th session the average number of days from registration to the provision of the first opinion for the Committee on Transport and Infrastructure was 755 days, during the 14th session this indicator decreased to 207 days. for providing the first opinion decreased for almost half of the committees (for one committee, by nearly one and a half years). For most other committees, the increase was moderate, within one to two months, while only one committee recorded an increase in the average time of more than six months.

Overall, the workload and the speed of issuing opinions are mostly correlated. For example, the Committee on Economic Development provided the highest number of opinions (22) and at the same time had the highest average duration for providing an opinion — 399 days. By contrast, the Budget Committee provided only 4 opinions but did so the fastest — on average within 8 days. However, in some cases, workload and the speed of providing opinions do not correlate. For instance, the Committee on Youth and Sports, despite providing a small number of opinions (only 3), delivered them on average within 157 days.

*The median is the value that divides all the data in half, meaning that half of all observations will be less than the median and half will be more than the median.

Compared to the 13th session, the average number of days required to provide the first committee opinion before the first reading almost doubled for presidential draft laws, although it has not yet reached the level of the 12th session. For the Cabinet of Ministers, the average timeframe for providing an opinion decreased by more than half (by 56 days), while for MPs it increased by 19 days. For the sixth consecutive session, the average timeframe for providing first opinions on government draft laws remains shorter than that for MPs’ draft laws.

The median time for providing the first opinion on government draft laws is significantly shorter than the average timeframe for providing opinions on MPs’ draft laws. Compared to the 13th session, the median time for government draft laws decreased, while for MPs’ draft laws it increased significantly (by 15 days). At the same time, the median time for providing the first committee opinion on presidential draft laws is considerably shorter than that for both government and MPs’ draft laws. As is typically the case, presidential draft laws receive committee opinions the fastest, with half of such draft laws receiving the first committee opinion within two weeks.

Draft laws submitted by most factions and groups during the 14th session received opinions faster than during the 13th session, and for some factions, the average speed increased almost fourfold. However, for draft laws initiated by MPs from the Servant of the People and Fatherland factions and the Restoration of Ukraine group, the speed of providing first opinions decreased. For draft laws initiated by MPs from the European Solidarity faction, no committee opinions were provided before the first reading.

The five draft laws with the longest timeframes from registration to the first opinion of the main committee are presented in Annex 1.

The speed of providing committee opinions before the second readingThe number of days was calculated between the date the draft law was adopted in the first reading and the date the committee submitted its first opinion for the second reading (although there may be several opinions). is less indicative due to the small number of such opinions per committee. These dataDue to the small number of opinions for the second reading, only the average value is used here. Only eight committees submitted five or more opinions for the second reading during the 14th session. should therefore be treated with caution; however, they still merit attention. Six out of elevenAnother 13 committees did not provide any opinion for the second reading. committees (i.e. more than half) increased the average time taken to provide opinions before the second reading compared to the previous 13th session, while three committees increased this timeframe by one year or more. 

The average time from the adoption of a draft law at the first reading to the provision of an opinion before the second reading amounted to 259 days, which is twice as long as during the 13th session, while half of all opinions were provided by committees in less than 114 days.

*Committees did not provide opinions on presidential draft laws for the second reading during the 14th session. Therefore, this initiator is highlighted in grey in the table.

The speed of providing the first committee opinion before the second reading shows that, compared to the 13th session, the average time for providing opinions on government draft laws increased almost two and a half times, while for MPs’ draft laws it nearly doubled. During the 14th session, committees did not provide any opinions before the second reading for presidential draft laws. For draft laws initiated by MPs from the Servant of the People faction, the time required to provide the first committee opinion before the second reading also increased (by 36 days).

*It should also be taken into account that a significant number of opinions (more than five) were provided only for draft laws initiated by the Government and MPs from the Servant of the People faction. For other factions and groups, the number of draft laws for which opinions were provided is fewer than five; these are also highlighted in grey in the table. For these categories, the indicated values may be explained by coincidence rather than a systemic pattern. 

The five draft laws with the longest timeframes from the first reading to submission of the first opinion of the main committee for the second reading, as well as the five fastest draft laws, are presented in Annex 2.

The average timeframe for the adoption of laws, regardless of the reading at which they were adopted, is 230 days, with a median of 106 days (i.e. half of the draft laws were adopted in more than 106 days and half in a shorter period). 

For 90% of draft laws, the time required for adoption at the first reading and in their entirety increased. As a result, the median time rose compared to the 13th session. All draft laws adopted at the first reading and in their entirety were registered after 2025. This trend generally corresponds to the standard logic of using the first reading as a fast-track mechanism for adopting the most urgent draft laws.

The experimental indicator ‘growth rate’ increased by approximately 7 days, indicating an acceleration in the growth of the time required to adopt draft laws at the first reading and in their entirety. It should be recalled that the growth rate is calculated as the average difference between the decile differences in the number of days from registration to adoption for the 13th and 12th sessions and the decile differences for the 14th and 13th sessions. 

In the first reading and in entirety, 10 government draft laws, 8 MPs’ draft laws and 12 presidential draft laws were adopted. Half of the government draft laws consisted of ratifications. At the same time, all (except one) presidential draft laws adopted at the first reading and in entirety were approvals of decrees and ratifications.

The timeframe for the passage of government draft laws from registration to adoption at the first reading and in entirety increased by 21 days. The average timeframe for MPs’ draft laws is 91 days, which is the third highest figure for the period from the 4th to the 13th sessions of the IX convocation. It is noteworthy that for MPs’ draft laws, both the average and the median timeframe increased. This indicates that some MPs’ draft laws have taken significantly longer to pass from registration to adoption at the first reading and in their entirety, including due to the consideration of a number of older draft laws.

For presidential draft laws, the average timeframe increased and returned to the level of the 9th session. The median timeframe also increased, indicating that presidential draft laws have begun to take longer to pass from registration to adoption at the first reading and in their entirety.

The five draft laws with the longest timeframes from registration to adoption at the first reading and in their entirety, as well as the five fastest draft laws, are presented in Annex 3.

During the 14th session, the Parliament increased the time required for the passage of draft laws from registration to adoption at the second reading and in their entirety. On average, this timeframe increased by 73 days compared to the 13th session and by 47 days compared to the 12th session. The average time from registration to adoption at the second reading and in its entirety is the highest for the entire period of the IX convocation. The median value increased by 65 days and returned to the level observed during the 12th session. For 70% of draft laws, the time required for adoption at the second reading and in their entirety increased. Only 3 out of 33 (9%) draft laws adopted at the second reading and in their entirety were registered before 24 February 2022. This indicates that during the 14th session, Parliament adopted almost exclusively laws corresponding to the martial law agenda. These indicators demonstrate that over three years and eight sessions under martial law, the Verkhovna Rada has effectively developed a new legislative agenda with a new volume of draft laws.

The growth rate of the time from registration to adoption at the second reading and in its entirety increased, interrupting the trend of the previous two sessions. While the timeframes for adopting draft laws increased during the 14th session, the pace of this increase declined significantly compared to previous periods.

*The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted only two presidential draft laws in the second reading and in entirety during the 14th session. Therefore, this initiator is highlighted in grey in the table.

Government draft laws reduced (compared to the 13th session) the average time required for their passage from registration to adoption at the second reading and in their entirety and, for the first time since the 10th session, continue to pass this stage faster than MPs’ draft laws. At the same time, MPs’ draft laws set a new record during the 14th session — their average time from registration to adoption reached 433 days, the slowest figure for the period from the 4th to the 14th sessions.

During the 14th session, 2 presidential draft laws were adopted, which on average passed from registration to adoption within 127 days. However, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the influence of the President as a legislative initiator on the legislative process due to the small number of adopted laws.

The five draft laws with the longest timeframes from registration to adoption at the second reading and in their entirety, as well as the five fastest draft laws, are presented in Annex 4.

*The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted only two presidential draft law in the second reading and in entirety during the 14th session. Therefore, this initiator is highlighted in grey in the table.

The passage of draft laws from adoption in the first reading to adoption at the second reading and in their entirety during the 14th session returned to the trends observed during the 8th, 9th and 12th sessions, when MPs’ draft laws took longer to pass from the first reading to adoption at the second reading and in their entirety than government initiatives. However, compared to the 13th session, the timeframe for the passage of MPs’ draft laws increased more than twofold and set a new record. The timeframe for government draft laws slightly decreased compared to the 13th session, although it has not yet reached the level of the 12th session. A similar situation is observed with presidential legislative initiatives.

The timeframe between the first reading and adoption at the second reading increased for 100% of draft laws.

The five draft laws with the longest timeframes from adoption in the first reading to adoption in the second reading and in their entirety, as well as the five fastest draft laws, are presented in Annex 5.

389 draft laws were registered, of which:

1. 7 (1.8%) European integration draft laws;
2. 17 (4.4%) draft laws on the consent to or denunciation of international treaties;
3. 1 (0.3%) urgent draft law.

63 were adopted, of which:

1. 2 (3.2%) European integration draft laws;
2. 10 (16%) laws on ratification of international treaties;
3. 5 (8%) laws were identified by the President as urgent.

The 14th session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is characterised by a further decline in legislative activity: 389 draft laws were registered, which is one of the lowest figures for the entire IX convocation and continues the downward trend that emerged after the 9th session. A similar dynamic is observed in terms of effectiveness — only 63 laws were adopted, which is the lowest figure for this convocation.

The indicators of the 14th session point to a partial decrease in legislative spam, primarily due to the reduction in the overall number of registered draft laws and the declining share of initiatives with one signatory. At the same time, the share of draft laws with 8–22 signatories has increased, which may indicate a higher level of cross-factional cooperation and better prior preparation of documents. However, the problem of legislative spam has not been fully resolved. The Restoration of Ukraine group continues to demonstrate an abnormally high number of draft laws per MP, despite a significant decrease in this indicator, which remains a structural risk to the quality of the legislative process.

During the 14th session, a total of 389 draft laws were registered — 47 fewer than during the previous autumn (12th) session. Overall, the 14th session is one of the lowest in terms of the number of registered draft laws for the entire IX convocation; fewer draft laws (by four) were registered only during the 8th session. This result returns to the trend of a gradual decrease in the number of registered draft laws observed from the 9th to the 13th session. Such a volume of registered draft laws indicates a potential reduction in legislative spam or, at least, a decrease in legislative activity. 

During the 14th session, 7 European integrationEuro-integration draft laws are those that have been granted this status by decision of the Committee on European Integration. Consequently, the number of Euro-integration draft laws for the 14th session may vary and may not correspond to the figures given in the Monitoring Report. This may occur if the Committee on European Integration recognises draft laws registered during the 14th session as European integration-related after the publication of the Monitoring for that session. The data presented here regarding the number of registered European integration-related draft laws is current as of 03.02.2026. draft laws were registered, accounting for 1.8% of all registered legislative initiatives.

During the 14th session, 17 draft laws on granting consent to or denunciation of international treaties were registered, accounting for 4.4% of all registered legislative initiatives.

During the 14th session, 1 urgent draft law was registered, accounting for 0.3% of all registered legislative initiatives.

*For simplicity, the term ‘initiator’ is used here and in similar tables below. This is accurate in the case of the Government and the President. Factions of the Verkhovna Rada do not have the right of legislative initiative; therefore, when referring to factions, this should be understood as indicating the faction or group affiliation of the first signatory (initiator) among Members of Parliament.

For most factions and groups of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the indicators of the 14th session remain relatively stable, demonstrating trends similar to those of the previous sessions (10th–13th). Fatherland (4.4%) and European Solidarity (3.3%) registered between 13 and 17 draft laws, which corresponds to their previous activity. The share of draft laws submitted by the Servant of the People faction (39.3%) has remained almost unchanged and continues to be relatively low for this faction. However, several notable changes and specific features should be highlighted:

1. The share of draft laws initiated by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine decreased to 20.3%, compared to 22.7% during the 13th session. At the same time, this share remains higher than the Cabinet’s typical level. While during the previous session such high figures were largely the result of re-registration of draft laws, in the current session this may indicate an increase in the Government’s actual legislative activity.
2. The share of draft laws submitted by the President reached a record low for the IX convocation. This could suggest at least a formal distancing of the President from domestic policymaking; however, the relatively high share of adopted presidential laws indicates the opposite.
3. The Holos faction continues to increase its activity (4% compared to 3% during the 13th session and 1.6% during the 12th), although it remains at a relatively low level compared to the sessions prior to the full-scale invasion.
4. The share of draft laws submitted by the Restoration of Ukraine group increased after a significant decline during the 13th session. The group remains one of the most active, surpassing most factions and groups, which confirms the tendency towards possible legislative spam. However, this increase in share is rather a result of the overall decline in indicators: in absolute terms, the group has in fact almost halved its activity (during the previous five sessions, the number of draft laws remained at around 90 per session).
5. Non-factional MPs have increased their share of registered draft laws: while during the 13th session it amounted to 6%, it now exceeds 8.7%. This increase is primarily explained by the decrease in the number of draft laws registered by other factions and groups.

The authorship of the draft law was determined by the initiator’s factional affiliation. For MPs, the first signatory of the draft law is considered the initiator. This method has certain limitations; however, it is also used by the VRU Secretariat. In addition, Article 90(3) of the Rules of Procedure explicitly defines the MP whose signature appears first as the initiator of a draft law.

The number of registered draft laws per MPNotably, the number of draft laws per MP cannot be considered an indicator of the effectiveness of factions or groups. Rather, it is a metric that helps to better understand general trends in the work of the Verkhovna Rada. The number of draft laws introduced by individual MPs is deliberately not presented here, as it is often perceived by them as a measure of their personal performance, which incentivises the registration of a greater number of draft laws at the expense of quality — one of the drivers of legislative spam. for the majority of factions and groups in the 14th session demonstrates a significant decrease compared to the 13th session. The main reason for this is that the 14th session is the least active, whereas the 13th session was one of the most active (during the period of the full-scale invasion) in terms of the number of draft laws.

As during the 12th session, most factions and groups account for fewer than one draft law per MP, with two exceptions — non-factional MPs and the Restoration of Ukraine group. Compared to the 12th session, the Fatherland and Holos factions, the Party For the Future group and non-factional MPs have increased the number of registered draft laws per MP. This is particularly evident in the case of the Holos faction, which has doubled the number of draft laws per MP (0.79 during the 14th session compared to 0.35 during the 12th session). Overall, all four of these factions and groups have higher indicators during the 13th and 14th sessions than during the 12th session. The average numberIt is reasonable to assume that legislative drafting work within political parties forming factions is better organised than in groups formed by MPs elected in single-member constituencies, given the existence of a stable organisational structure and the capacity to organise the work of a parliamentary association as a subject of the right of legislative initiative. This evidently affects their ability to develop group draft laws. of draft laws per MP stands at 0.9.

For the seventh consecutive session, the Restoration of Ukraine group stands out the most. Despite a significant decrease in this indicator during the 14th session (3.24 compared to 5.71 during the 13th session and 4.94 during the 12th session), the group remains the leader. This number of draft laws per MP still exceeds the indicators of all other factions and groups in any other session and is indicative of legislative spam.

In the context of this indicator, it is worth noting the gradual decrease in the number of Members of Parliament in the Verkhovna Rada. Thus, from the 11th to the 14th session, their number decreased from 401 to 393.

In terms of the number of signatories to draft laws, the 14th session returns to the trend observed during the 12th session — namely, a decrease in the number of draft laws with one initiator, a large number of which indirectly indicates the presence of legislative spam. The share of draft laws with one signatory decreased compared to the 13th session, although it still remains higher than during the 11th and 12th sessions. At the same time, the share of draft laws with 4–7 and 8–22 signatories increased. This may indicate a higher level of cooperation among MPs and potentially a somewhat higher quality of draft laws. At the same time, the share of draft laws with more than 23 signatories decreased.

In this section of parliamentary monitoring, the authors proceed from the assumption that a larger number of signatories positively correlates with better elaboration of draft laws, a higher level of consensus and serves as an indicator of a reduction in legislative spam.

The draft law with the largest number of signatories — 183 — is the draft law on amendments to the Civil Code of Ukraine No. 14057 of 21 September 2025.

During the 14th session, a total of 63 laws were adopted in their entirety. This is the lowest figure for the IX convocation. At the same time, it is slightly lower than the result of the 10th session, which until now had been the minimum in terms of the number of adopted laws. Given the record-low number of registered draft laws, it can be concluded that there has been a significant decrease in legislative activity.

During the 14th session, 2 European integration laws were adopted, accounting for 3.2% of all adopted laws.

During the 14th session, the Verkhovna Rada adopted 10 laws on granting consent to international treaties, accounting for 16% of all adopted laws. Of the 10 treaties ratified by the Verkhovna Rada during the 14th session, 1 was a multilateral agreement and 9 were bilateral agreements. Among these, two agreements each were ratified with the European Investment Bank and Italy.

Five draft laws (8%) adopted during the 14th session were identified by the President of Ukraine as urgent.

The President vetoed (and submitted his proposals to) one draft law. At present, this draft law is being prepared for consideration.

First, MPs of the Servant of the People faction demonstrated the lowest share of all adopted draft laws for the entire IX convocation (39.7%). For comparison, the average share for this faction across all sessions under martial law is 48%. The share of adopted draft laws submitted by Servant of the People had been increasing since the 10th session.

Second, the share of adopted laws initiated by the President of Ukraine increased significantly (22.2%) compared to the results of the 13th (12%) and 12th (15%) sessions. This is the highest share of adopted presidential laws for the IX convocation. The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, for the first time in the last four consecutive sessions, demonstrated a slight increase in its share of adopted laws; however, this increase is indeed minimal — less than 1%.

Third, the share of laws initiated by MPs from minority factions and non-affiliated MPs amounts to 12% in total, which is lower than during the 13th session (16%). This level is more typical for the IX convocation. In particular, the decrease in this indicator may be explained by the fact that (1) the share of draft laws initiated by the President has significantly increased and (2) the number of factions and groups with adopted draft laws has decreased overall.

The 14th session reinforced the positive trends observed in previous sessions. Compared to the 13th session, the share of adopted laws with more than 8 signatories increased significantly. Overall, draft laws with 8–22 signatories account for nearly one third, while those with more than 23 signatories constitute more than half of all adopted laws.

For the second consecutive session, the share of draft laws with 23+ signatories is not only record-high but also the highest among all groups. At the same time, the share of draft laws with fewer than 8 signatories continues to decline. Thus, 84% of adopted laws have more than 8 signatories, compared to 64% during the 13th session.

The draft law with the highest number of signatories — 65 — is the draft law on academic integrity No. 10392 of 08 January 2024, adopted by the Verkhovna Rada on 18 December 2025.