Petition against the new Civil Code gained the necessary 25,000 votes in less than a day

An electronic petition calling to prevent the adoption of the new Civil Code of Ukraine collected the 25,000 signatures required for consideration in less than a day. As of May 12, the number of votes exceeded 27,000.

Petition No. 22/264376-ep concerns draft law No. 15150, which was registered in the Verkhovna Rada on April 9, 2026.

What does the new Civil Code provide for

Previously, the Verkhovna Rada supported draft law No. 15150 on a large-scale update of the civil legislation of Ukraine in the first reading. The document provides for a systematic revision of private law in nine books that will regulate personal, family, inheritance, property and international private relations.

254 people’s deputies voted for the corresponding decision.

Petitioner claims risks to human rights

The petitioner believes that certain provisions of the new Civil Code may contradict human rights, the principle of the rule of law, and Ukraine’s European integration course.

Among the most controversial norms, she names provisions on divorce, as well as the use of the term “common sense,” which, in her opinion, is legally uncertain and may create room for abuse.

The petition asks the President of Ukraine to appeal to the Verkhovna Rada to withdraw the draft law from consideration, and if it is adopted, to apply the right of veto. The initiator also calls for the development of new amendments to civil legislation with the participation of human rights activists and experts.

Stefanchuk called some of the criticism manipulation

Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada Ruslan Stefanchuk previously stated that information about the alleged introduction of forced reconciliation of spouses or “return to homemaking” in the new code is manipulation.

He also explained that the term “common sense” corresponds to the European approach of boni mores and is already used in the legislation of a number of EU countries, in particular Germany, France and the Netherlands.

In addition, according to Stefanchuk, the norms on the “right to be forgotten” do not concern restrictions on freedom of speech and do not create a mechanism for avoiding journalistic investigations.