A clause in Ukraine’s new Civil Code would let people demand the deletion of information about themselves from search engines and state registers—even when true—once a judge agrees it has “lost public interest.” Parliament approved the bill in first reading on 28 April.
Two weeks later, NABU named Andrii Yermak—Zelenskyy’s former chief of staff—a suspect in Ukraine’s largest wartime corruption case.
A day after the vote, Ukrainska Pravda’s Mykhailo Tkach broadcast new transcripts implicating Tymur Mindich, the alleged organizer of a $100 million kickback scheme at state nuclear operator Energoatom. Opposition MP Yaroslav Zheleznyak released a second batch on 1 May. Mindich, a fugitive in Israel, is suing Zheleznyak for defamation.
Today, public figures who want news reports removed must allege falsity in defamation court. Article 328 of Bill 15150 would let them skip that step.
Operation Midas has already forced the resignation of Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Andrii Yermak.
Operation Midas—the National Anti-Corruption Bureau case—has already forced the resignation of Zelenskyy’s chief of staff, Andrii Yermak, and brought money laundering charges against the former energy minister. The Code’s right to forget arrived four weeks after Ukraine requested Mindich’s extradition from Israel.
Yermak notified Yermak of suspicion in a case alleging the laundering of roughly $9 million through the Dynastia mansion complex in Kozyn near Kyiv. Six more suspects, including a former vice prime minister and a businessman NABU describes as one of the alleged organizers of Operation Midas, were notified the next day.
What the ‘right to forget’ would do
The Ukrainian open-data company YouControl published an analysis warning that Article 328 would become a tool for sanctioned figures and corruption suspects to scrub themselves from public databases. European GDNR balances the right to be forgotten against freedom of speech and legal obligations, the company’s lawyers note. Bill 15150 contains no such balance.
“If this norm comes into effect, media and analytical systems will be forced either to remove information about a person or whitewash the reputation of such figures,” they wrote.
YouControl’s lawyers call this “legal nonsense”—businesses cannot hold privacy rights the way persons can.
Two other provisions go further. Articles 345 and 353 grant legal entities a “digital image” status, requiring corporate consent to process data about them. YouControl’s lawyers call this “legal nonsense”—businesses cannot hold privacy rights the way persons can.
A separate clause introduces a “right to informational peace,” inviting SLAPP suits (strategic lawsuits against public participation) against journalists and open-data platforms like YouControl itself.
A familiar pattern
Bihus.Info, an investigative outlet known for wartime corruption reporting, has been here before. SBU officers illegally surveilled the team in 2024, then a fabricated drug exposé was used to discredit them.
The new Civil Code would give future targets a legal route to demand deletion of such reporting.
They survived. The new Civil Code would give future targets a legal route to demand deletion of such reporting once a judge accepts that it has “lost public interest.”
The second reading
The European Union approved a €90 billion loan (≈$100 billion) to Ukraine on 23 April—six days before Tkach’s broadcast. Disbursements are conditional on Ukraine’s continued anti-corruption work.
Deputy Prime Minister Taras Kachka announced months of public consultations before the second reading.
At a joint briefing in May, EU Ambassador Katarína Mathernová said Brussels is analyzing the Civil Code draft, while noting that family and private law decisions remain with member states. Deputy Prime Minister Taras Kachka announced months of public consultations before the second reading.
Whether those consultations reach the provisions journalists are watching is the open question. Mindich is suing Zheleznyak for defamation. Yermak’s defense received a motion for a preventive measure on 12 May. Under the rules that may come, both could demand that the reporting about them be erased instead.
