Respect for Human Rights and Call for Loyalty: Ways Forward for the Ukrainian Citizenship

The DRI Briefing Paper was prepared by Olga Poiedynok, Post-doctoral fellow – Institute of International Relations, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv

Executive summary

Russia’s annexation of Crimea followed by the armed conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk regions have raised concerns among many Ukrainians that they could disappear as a sovereign nation. In response, many people and politicians started discussing what it means to be a Ukrainian. Frequently the concept of a citizen is used as meaning ‘a patriot’.

Several legislative initiatives regarding citizenship and nationality have elaborated this point. Proposals fall into three categories:

1) those aimed at facilitating the acquisition of Ukraine’s citizenship by foreigners and stateless persons who defend national interests of Ukraine;

2) those providing for the loss of Ukrainian citizenship by individuals whose actions are deemed to violate national interests of Ukraine; and

3) those dealing with dual (or multiple) nationality issues.

In the case of foreigners and stateless persons who defend national interests of Ukraine, there is a need to elaborate a comprehensive solution protecting non-Ukrainians risking their lives for Ukraine from persecution in the countries of their nationality. The 2016 amendments to the Law on Citizenship have partially met this goal, but it is too strict in terms of requiring proof that a foreign citizenship has been terminated (which can be impossible if the foreign government is not co-operative).

Many draft laws raise another difficult question: The stripping of citizenship of Ukrainians who are not loyal to the state or the nation. These are discussed in particular in relation to persons who cooperate with armed groups against the Ukrainian army or who support them. In this context, the 2016 Opinion of the Venice Commission on the French draft constitutional law On the Protection of the Nation – which includes the option of stripping convicted terrorist of the French citizenship provides an summary of applicable international standards that should be considered also by the Ukrainian parliament. However, the Article 25 of Ukraine’s Constitution and the country’s treaty obligations under conventions against statelessness are more stringent than those of France.

The public and parliamentary debate on the issues of dual (multiple) nationality is heated and the are many diverse draft laws trying to address the issue. Apart from considering the legal considerations highlighted in this paper, it would be useful if Article 4 (on citizenship) would be understood and applied uniformly. The Constitutional Court could be asked to clarify its meaning.

Other practical steps would include:  harmonising legislation on public service with that on nationality and citizenship, enlarging the existing definition of “a reason for failure to obtain a document proving termination of a foreign citizenship for a reason not related to the individual concerned” and possibly amending constitutional provisions proclaiming the principles of single citizenship.

The numerous draft laws tabled in the Parliament point to an on-going weakness of Ukraine’s parliamentary work. Instead of engaging the public in policy debates that reflect on problems and possible policy solutions (which do not always need to be laws), many MPs spent significant energies in producing legal draft texts which non-experts cannot read and which have no chances of being adopted.


Historically, Ukraine’s attitude to defining its citizens[1] (persons enjoying the full range of political rights), has been rather relaxed compared to some other post-Soviet states, such as Latvia and Estonia. This difference in attitude has historical explanations. The Baltic States liberated themselves from the Soviet occupation to regain independent statehood. Ukraine on the other hand was legally the continuator of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and its citizens, permanently residing on its territory automatically became Ukrainian citizens.

However, when Russia occupied Crimea in 2014, followed by an armed conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk regions and Russian propaganda, Ukrainians started fearing that they could be made to disappear as a sovereign nation. As a consequence, the issue of Ukrainian citizenship became far more important in the public mind and political debates. The idea gained ground that a citizen needs to be loyal to the state and the nation, resulting in public pressure to introduce stricter policy towards citizenship and to demand loyalty from citizens.

Ukrainian politicians responded by proposing a number of legislative initiatives regarding citizenship and nationality. Some of these proposals clash with “old” but still debated principles enshrined in the 1996 Constitution (such as what a single citizenship or prohibition of deprivation of citizenship actually mean) well as with Ukraine’s obligations under international law.

In the lead-up to parliamentary and presidential elections one can expect further intensification of law-making activity in this field which enjoys high attention and potential of mobilising voters. This briefing paper is aimed at the analysis of the principal ideas underlying the proposed laws (even if some of them have already been withdrawn) as a contribution to further debate.

The case of foreigners and stateless persons who defend national interests of Ukraine

Amendments to Article 9 of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizenship of Ukraine” entered into force on 19 February 2016. The amendments concerned the granting of Ukrainian citizenship to foreigners who have sided with the government while taking part in the military action in the Eastern regions and who might be facing criminal prosecution in the countries of their origin, such as Belarus or Russia. As regards foreigners and stateless persons doing military service with the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the law stipulates that they can receive citizenship with the following privileges:

  • the local residence requirement that applies to others, has been reduced from five to three years (starting from the contract’s coming into effect) and
  • an immigration permit is not required anymore;
  • if the respective persons are decorated with official honours, the requirements of Ukrainian language skills and availability of lawful sources of income are not applicable to them either[2].

Draft law No. 1901, proposed on 2 February 2015, in its turn aims at reducing the list of naturalisation requirements for those who “protected sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine and directly participated in the anti-terrorist operation or hostilities being part of volunteer battalions, guerrilla forces or other territorial groups which cooperated with the Ukrainian Armed Forces, bodies of the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine and Security Service of Ukraine” or “experienced violations of human rights and freedoms in a foreign state’s territory in connection with their position or activities aimed at supporting sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine”[3].

These ideas show the lawmakers’ endeavour to create a comprehensive solution in order to protect non-Ukrainians risking their lives while defending national interests of Ukraine and who may be persecuted in the countries of their nationalities. The need for such a step is obvious. However, one should keep in mind that Ukrainian nationality is not the only option for those whose fight for Ukraine.  First and foremost, an alternative solution is foreseen by the existing Law of Ukraine “On Refugees and Persons in Need of Subsidiary or Temporary Protection” as well as Ukraine’s international obligations under the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention to grant protection to such persons, including the prohibition of their refoulement.

A way forward to address this issue would be to enlarge the existing definition of “a reason for failure to obtain a document proving termination of a foreign citizenship for a reason not related to the individual concerned” (незалежна від особи причина неотримання документа про припинення іноземного громадянства). Currently, even if a person is granted Ukrainian nationality, it can be withdrawn if she/he cannot prove renunciation of foreign nationality. This not possible, for example, in the case of Russian nationals.

This change would bring Ukrainian legislation in line with its international obligations under the Council of Europe’s 1997 European Convention on Nationality, Article 16, which reads as follows: “A State Party shall not make the renunciation or loss of another nationality a condition for the acquisition or retention of its nationality where such renunciation or loss is not possible or cannot reasonably be required”. The Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Nationality specifies that the existence of unreasonable, factual or legal requirements is to be assessed in each particular case by the national authorities of the State Party whose nationality the person is seeking to acquire (paragraph 99)[4].

The case of citizens whose actions are against national interests of Ukraine

Loyalty, or lack thereof, to the nation state is another critical issue which brought forth many draft laws, as it may concern a large number of citizens, especially those who reside in the territories not controlled by the Ukrainian government. Evidently any factual findings on the conduct of Ukrainians living outside Ukraine’s de facto control in Eastern Ukraine or Crimea are difficult to make.

The general idea behind the draft laws is to punish separatism and acts that threaten national security. Similar initiatives are suggested in other countries, such as France. The French draft constitutional law On the Protection of the Nation provides for deprivation of French nationality as a sanction for terrorism for all French citizens regardless of whether they are French by birth or by naturalisation and making no distinction based on the number of nationalities the concerned person has. When assessing if the document is in line with international law, the Venice Commission pointed out that the draft law is not “per se against international standards” (paragraph 103), and reminded that “[i]n principle, international law accepts that it is for each State to sovereignly determine who its nationals are” (paragraph 39). [5] However, this Opinion of the Venice Commission is not fully applicable to  Ukraine, because France enjoys considerably more freedom in this area. Ukraine is a State Party to conventions on statelessness prevention, specifically the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the 1997 European Convention on Nationality. Therefore, Ukraine is under an international obligation to not put persons at risk of statelessness, while France is not.

Even if the legislative proposal targets only Ukrainian citizens who have an “additional” foreign nationality, Ukraine is likely to face certain difficulties when implementing it in line with the mentioned international conventions.  In particular, Ukraine would have to obtain strong evidence of the individual’s foreign nationality and of the absence of risk that they would not become stateless after losing Ukrainian citizenship. This is not an easy task, even more so given the extremely poor bilateral relations between Ukraine and the foreign states in question, as the latter may simply ignore any enquiries made by Ukraine’s competent authorities. Further, if a person loses their Ukrainian citizenship, Ukraine is likely to significantly limit the opportunity to exercise its full sovereign powers, including criminal prosecution, regarding the person concerned.

Besides, Ukraine’s Constitution (Article 25) says that “[n]o citizen of Ukraine shall be deprived of nationality or of the right to change nationality”. This provision reflects the contents of Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which reads as follows: “Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality”. The fundamental difference between the two provisions is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits depriving anyone of nationality arbitrarily, while the Ukrainian Constitution prohibits deprivation of nationality under all circumstances.

Historically, Ukraine introduced an absolute ban on deprivation of nationality to prevent a return to the Soviet totalitarian practice of terminating citizenship as a possible sanction for dissidents (i.e. those who actively opposed the official ideology, refused to support the Government’s policies and/or conducted themselves in a manner seriously opposed to the perceived vital interests of the Soviet State).

Generally, the issue of deprivation of nationality is rather controversial in the theory of both constitutional and international law. The discussion is often complicated by the multitude of national approaches to the issues of nationality/citizenship and a lack of unified terminology even at the international level. For example, termination of nationality ex lege or at the initiative of a State Party is referred to as a “loss of nationality” in the 1997 European Convention on Nationality, whereas in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness the same situation is described by the word “deprivation”. As mentioned, Ukraine has ratified both conventions, and neither of them contains an absolute prohibition of deprivation of nationality or its loss ex lege or at the initiative of a state. Its prohibition only concerns a deprivation or loss of nationality that will result in statelessness, and even that rule has its exceptions, e.g. acquisition of the nationality by means of fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant.

However, due to the wording of Article 25 of the Constitution, Ukrainian lawmakers have to avoid the term “deprivation” when it comes to nationality. Instead they euphemistically use the word “loss” as a safer alternative, even if termination of citizenship is seen as a sanction imposed on an individual for actions that are contrary to the national interests of Ukraine.

In the context of the currently stalled work of the Constitutional Commission on the amendments to Chapter II of Ukraine’s Constitution, one might consider changing the wording of Article 25, aligning it with the text of Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This would be the most direct way to clear up the misunderstandings and artificial substitution of concepts created by the omission of the qualification “arbitrary” in the prohibition of deprivation of citizenship. At the same time, this proposal might raise an issue under Article 157 of the Constitution of Ukraine if seen by the Constitutional Court as narrowing existing human rights and freedoms. An alternative way of dealing with the matter would be to investigate the possibility of addressing the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to obtain its interpretation of Article 25 of the Constitution.

The Venice Commission and France, study case for Ukrainian legislation[6]

The Venice Commission and France

The Venice Commission opinion is especially important to the Council of Europe Member states, since it includes conclusions on the international legal framework for termination of nationality at a state’s initiative. Paragraph 47 includes “rules and principles of international law and the legal principles generally recognised in the sphere of nationality”.

  1. “There may be provision for loss of nationality in domestic law in cases of conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State Party.
  2. Statelessness must be avoided.
  1. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality.”

Therefore, “deprivation of nationality must be founded on an implementing act clearly and unequivocally setting out the grounds on which nationality may be withdrawn; the rules governing deprivation must not have retrospective effect, which means that deprivation of nationality is admissible only for actions governed by a law expressly providing for it. As a punitive sanction, deprivation of nationality must be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime for which it has been imposed. Legal provisions aside, any individual decision relating to deprivation of nationality must respect the principle of proportionality. In practice, this means that deprivation is never an automatic measure; on the contrary, this step is acceptable only if it is the result of a meticulous examination on a case-by-case basis, including analysis of the family circumstances of the person concerned.”

Furthermore, the same paragraph of the above-mentioned Opinion of the Venice Commission sets out the principle of non-discrimination regarding rules on nationality. “In particular, such rules must not contain any distinctions or include practices amounting to discrimination based on gender, religion, race, skin colour or national or ethnic origin; they also must respect the principle of non-discrimination between nationals, whether they are nationals by birth or have acquired their nationality subsequently. Last but not least, the Venice Commission believes that the rules governing procedure must be strictly followed, particularly those protecting the right of the person concerned to be heard, the right to a written, reasoned decision and the right to judicial review.”

The Venice Commission also referred to the position of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to nationality issues: “[A]ccording to the Court’s case-law, the right to acquire or not lose a nationality is not protected by Article 8 of the Convention. The Court does accept, however, that, while nationality is not directly protected by an article of the Convention, measures prejudicial to it may be examined in light of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, with regard to the impact they may have on an individual’s “social identity”. Both an arbitrary refusal to grant nationality and a decision to strip someone of their nationality, making them stateless as a result, may fall within the scope of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. In both cases, the proportionality of the measure is a factor in the assessment of whether it conforms to the aforementioned articles”.

  1. The case of dual (or multiple) nationality

The issue of dual (or multiple) nationality is also a focus of public and parliamentary debate in Ukraine, where the loudest voices call for various sanctions against Ukrainian citizens for holding an additional nationality (first and foremost, when it is the nationality of the Russian Federation).

Each State strikes its own balance between advantages and disadvantages of dual nationality and develops its domestic legislation accordingly. In the case of Ukraine, the point of departure is Article 4 of the Constitution of Ukraine reading as follows: “There shall be single citizenship in Ukraine. Grounds for obtaining and termination of Ukraine’s citizenship shall be determined by law”. Article 2(1) of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizenship of Ukraine” interprets the principle of single citizenship contained in the Constitution as follows:

  • Individual administrative-territorial units, e.g. the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea and regions (“oblasts”) cannot have their own citizenship;
  • Even if a Ukrainian citizen has obtained the nationality of another state, he/she shall be regarded only as a Ukrainian citizen in his/her relations with Ukraine;
  • If a foreigner has obtained Ukraine’s nationality, he/she shall be regarded only as a Ukrainian citizen in his/her relations with Ukraine.

Considering the aforementioned, Ukraine does not recognize legal consequences of dual nationality, but does not forbid it as such. In particular, Ukraine’s legislation does not set forth a duty of Ukraine’s citizens to relinquish any other nationality. In this connection, it is worth mentioning Article 19(1) of the Constitution of Ukraine, which proclaims: “The legal order in Ukraine shall be based on the principles according to which no one shall be obliged to do what is not stipulated by law”. In other words, the principle of single citizenship is not equivalent to the prohibition of dual/multiple nationality in Ukrainian law. Rather, it is a matter of not -recognising the legal consequences of foreign citizenship(s) in the case of individuals who have Ukrainian citizenship.

However, in the many draft laws there is a trend towards interpreting the constitutional principle of single citizenship as a prohibition of multiple nationality and changing the legislation accordingly. If we analyse numerous draft laws intended to prevent and curtail cases of dual nationality, out of the existing proposals, the following ideas can be highlighted:

  • Preventing dual nationality is proclaimed as a goal of Ukraine’s legislation on citizenship;
  • The notion of “voluntary acquisition of a foreign nationality” is enlarged;
  • The presumption of voluntary acquisition of a foreign nationality or willingness to terminate Ukrainian citizenship is applied if a person uses any right attached to respective foreign nationality regardless of the factual circumstances of acquiring the foreign nationality;
  • The duty to report acquisition of a foreign nationality and a punishment if not reported are introduced;
  • Ban to employ persons who acquired foreign citizenship as public servants or servicepersons; ban on holding certain posts or to become elected as members of parliament or local councils;
  • Indication of information on foreign nationality (if any) when filling out declarations of persons authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government provided for in the Law of Ukraine “On Preventing Corruption” is introduced.

Among these ideas, one could welcome the endeavour to elaborate a unified approach to the legal consequences of the possession of foreign nationality in the case of persons exercising authority (functions of the state or local self-government). Today, the situation varies depending on a given post or position and various acts governing the status of public servants: some positions can be occupied by dual nationals until they lose their Ukrainian citizenship, other positions can be held until the possession of a foreign nationality is revealed; and in many cases the connection between the possession of a foreign nationality and the possibility to occupy certain offices is not obvious at all. In this context, it should be noted that the legislation on public service should be in line with that on nationality and citizenship in order to avoid intra-system conflicts complicating the operation of law to a significant extent.

However, most of the draft laws usually fail to spell out a clear procedure for the termination of Ukrainian citizenship due to voluntary acquisition of a foreign nationality, as well as mechanisms of revealing cases of multiple nationality. Objectively, it is extremely difficult to elaborate an infallibly effective universal method, or set of methods, of preventing multiple nationality.

First of all, it may be impossible to eradicate multiple nationality in some cases (children, refugees) by means of national legislation. In many cases it is de facto impossible, since no national legislation is able to respond to provisions of foreign legal systems of more than 190 states.

Secondly, revealing cases of multiple nationality requires active cooperation with foreign states that are often reluctant to share information on acquisition and/or possession of their respective nationalities.

Thirdly, dual nationality may result from international obligations on the reduction of statelessness, which is universally considered to be a more dangerous phenomenon than multiple nationalities – being an issue of loyalty, obligations and diplomatic protection for the states and a human rights problem for the persons concerned.

While many draft laws focus on preventing the cases of dual nationalities, there are initiatives which take into consideration the reality of  dual citizenship in Ukraine. This approach that can be characterized as individual-oriented would allow Ukrainians who also have foreign citizenship(s) not to choose between the existing citizenships It was followed in the withdrawn draft law No. 2074 On Citizenship of Ukraine[7].

Some legislative initiatives deal specifically with Ukrainian citizens who also possess the nationality of the Russian Federation. In particular, draft law No. 4113[8] deals with limitations for individuals possessing nationality of Russia. Such limitations apply to holding certain posts or to being elected as members of parliament or local councils.

However, even if a draft law is not specifically designed to regulate issues of the Russian nationality of Ukrainian citizens it should always be borne in mind that any legislative initiative opposing multiple nationality would potentially be applicable to persons possessing both Ukrainian and Russian nationalities. A key factor here would be the lack of cooperation between the two states, especially in cases that are related, even to the slightest degree possible, to the ongoing armed conflict. In this context Article 5(4) of the Law of Ukraine “On Guaranteeing Citizens’ Human Rights and Freedoms and the Legal Regime in the Temporarily Occupied Territory of Ukraine” should be borne in mind: “Compulsory automatic acquisition of nationality of the Russian Federation by Ukraine’s nationals residing in the temporarily occupied territory shall not be recognized by Ukraine and shall not constitute ground for the loss of Ukraine’s nationality”.

The number, variety and public outreach of this group of initiatives demonstrate that the Ukraine would benefit from a clearer understanding of Article 4 of the Constitution. Without such an understanding legal initiatives and public debates lack a clear constitutional framework. Such uniformity can be achieved either by means of interpretation by Article 4 of the Constitution by the Constitutional Court or by amending the Constitution with a more detailed wording of the principle which would articulate its exact meaning. That being said, it should also be kept in mind that Article 4 of the Constitution belongs to its Chapter I, which could only be changed at a national referendum following a complicated procedure at the Verkhovna Rada and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

The Way Forward

The attempts to redefine Ukraine’s citizenship have been marked by significant political posturing without deeper understanding or debates of legal and social implications. It thus seems necessary to mention a few considerations that should, in our view, be guiding any serious discussion about any initiatives and draft laws dealing with Ukraine’s nationality and citizenship.

First, the concept of citizenship in jurisprudence differs from that in sociology or political science, and legally speaking “a citizen” does not mean “a patriot”. Moreover, the fundamental rights and freedoms of a rule-of-law based European democracy as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights should never be forgotten. Furthermore, opinions of the Venice Commission should be taken into account when shaping Ukraine’s democracy through legal means.

Second, the analysis should be based on the existing legal framework formed by Ukraine’s own Constitution (unless the initiative suggests amending the Constitution) and its specific international obligations stemming from conventions on statelessness as well as from general human rights treaties.

Third, any proposal affecting citizenship and, more generally, personal status must be based on a thorough feasibility and enforceability study. In particular, the situation of the ongoing armed conflict and the lack of international legal cooperation from the Russian Federation should be taken into account.

Fourth, one should keep in mind the perspectives for post-conflict settlement and eventual reintegration of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (and, in the longer-term perspective, of the Crimea) into Ukraine. This also includes, but is not limited to, the issue of criminal prosecution.

At a more practical level, a number of concrete steps for clarifying the above-mentioned issues of Ukrainian citizenship could be considered as a matter of priority. In particular, the existing legislation on public service should be harmonised with that on nationality and citizenship to prevent unclarity and disparities between various categories of public servants. Further, enlarging the existing definition of “a reason for failing to obtain a document certifying termination of foreign citizenship independent of the person concerned” would ensure legal certainty of a large category of dual citizens.

As regards issues caused by rather controversial wording of Ukraine’s Constitution, the most direct approach would be to amend its Article 4 to articulate the exact meaning of the single citizenship principle and its Article 25 to specify that the prohibition of deprivation of nationality should only refer to the cases when such deprivation is arbitrary. As long as such constitutional amendments are difficult if not impossible to make, the option of addressing the Constitutional Court of Ukraine with a request to interpret the constitutional principles of single citizenship and prohibition of deprivation of nationality should be considered by those who have the right to do so.


The public pressure to introduce a stricter policy towards citizenship and to demand better loyalty is clearly unlikely to disappear in war-torn Ukraine. If adopted, the revised legislative provisions should be unequivocal, clear, detailed and attainable. If a State sets forth prohibitions that are ignored, rules that are impossible to follow and laws that cannot be implemented, confidence in the rule of law and in state capacity will suffer. However, increasing legislative pressure is not the only or best method to ensure the loyalty of citizens, especially in times of conflict. Therefore, various ways and means to consolidate the nation while respecting the Constitution of Ukraine and its international legal obligations should be discussed.


Bert Kaufmann/Flickr

Ivan Bandura/Flickr


[1] The terms “citizen/citizenship” and “national/nationality” are used throughout this briefing paper. While often synonymous, they are not identical. Drawing a distinction between the terms “nationality” and “citizenship” is a difficult task, especially for East European lawyers, since post-Soviet legislations and legal research employ the notion of “citizenship” within the context of both national and international law. At the same time, “nationality” has much to do with ethnicity and is commonly used when it comes to the protection of national minorities. In Western Europe, the situation is different: the term “nationality” is more frequently used for the purposes of public international law to denote the legal bond between a State and individuals to whom the respective State extends its sovereignty. By contrast, the term “citizenship” is usually reserved for domestic law where it is applied for the description of a person’s rights and opportunities to participate in government (e.g. to take part in the conduct of public affairs, to vote and to be elected, to have access to the public service). The latter approach is used in this publication.

[2] See further:

[3] See:

[4] Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Nationality. European Treaty Series, No. 166. Strasbourg, 6.XI.1997. Available at:

[5] European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). Opinion on the draft constitutional law on “Protection of the Nation” of France. Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 106th Plenary Session (Venice, 11-12 March 2016) / Opinion No. 838/2016. CDL-AD(2016)006. Strasbourg, 14 March 2016. Available at:

[6] OPINION ON THE DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ON “PROTECTION OF THE NATION” OF FRANCE Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 106th Plenary Session (Venice, 11-12 March 2016)

[7] The draft law was tabled by MP Vadym Rabinovych in February 2015 and removed from the Parliament’s consideration in November 2016. See further:

[8] The draft law was tabled by MPs Artur Herasymov, Serhiy Alieksieiev and Georgii Logvynskyi in February 2016. See further:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.