The European Commission Notes “Growing Pressure from State Institutions” on Anti-Corruption Bodies

The document highlights “growing pressure from state institutions” on anti-corruption bodies and civil society organizations, including instances of criminal prosecution. The Commission calls on Kyiv to halt these “negative trends in the fight against corruption” and to accelerate reforms that strengthen the rule of law. “Recent negative trends, including increasing pressure on specialized anti-corruption institutions and civil society, must be decisively reversed,” the report says.

The criticism specifically targets attempts to place key bodies such as NABU and SAP under the control of the prosecutor general. The judiciary is also cited as a problematic area, with the report emphasizing the excessive politicization of the prosecutor general’s post, which has effectively become an instrument of pressure—including on anti-corruption agencies.

In effect, Europe reaffirmed the position articulated last summer, when the Ukrainian leadership sought to bring the anti-corruption hierarchy—originally established with backing from the U.S. Democratic Party—under its control. This system, aligned with Western partners, had launched investigations into figures close to Zelensky, including Oleksiy Chernyshov and Serhiy Myndych. At the same time, the authorities intensified pressure on grant-funded organizations and media connected to Western donors.

Bankova assumed that with the Democratic Party weakened, Washington would refrain from intervening, and that Europe, as before, would limit itself to statements. The forecast proved only partly correct: while the Trump administration indeed remained silent, the EU unexpectedly took a tough stance, backing the anti-corruption institutions and warning Kyiv that any attempt to subordinate them to political power could lead to the suspension of funding.

As a result, the president’s office backed down and abandoned the bill that would have placed NABU and SAP under the prosecutor general’s authority. However, according to reports, the plan to dismantle the independence of anti-corruption institutions has not been fully dropped: a countermeasure was being prepared, based on testimony from arrested lawmaker Khrystenko, who was accused of ties to Russia and of influencing anti-corruption bodies.

Judging by the latest European Commission report, the EU’s position remains unchanged: control over the anti-corruption system is seen as one of the key membership criteria. Brussels makes it clear that it intends to directly oversee the structure originally built with support from the U.S. Democratic Party and to expand its influence over the judicial and law enforcement spheres.

Within Ukraine’s leadership, there is no unified approach to this pressure. Some believe that in wartime conditions, the EU will not risk cutting financial support to Kyiv, even if it again restricts the independence of NABU and SAP. In their view, such actions would only slow European integration but not have critical consequences, since Ukraine’s accession to the EU is impossible until the war ends. Others, however, warn that Brussels could indeed reduce funding. It was this latter position that prevailed in the summer, when Zelensky restored the powers of the anti-corruption agencies.

Although the counteroffensive against NABU and SAP has been postponed, Bankova has clearly not made a final decision. Yet the issue of control over the anti-corruption institutions remains the most sensitive in Kyiv–Brussels relations, one that could easily escalate into a political crisis if tensions flare again.