Ukraine still lacks a unified legal framework governing service in local self-government bodies (LSG bodies) and the civil service, despite the fact that both share the same legal nature and functional purpose.

The new Law of Ukraine “On Service in Local Self-Government Bodies” has been adopted but has not yet entered into force, and its provisions still differ significantly from those regulating the civil service. Andrii Zabolotnyi, an expert at the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform, analysed the challenges of harmonising the two types of public service, the risks of excessive autonomy, and proposals for implementing European principles of good governance in this area.

Below are 10 key takeaways from the analysis:

1. Service in local self-government bodies and the civil service have the same legal nature but are regulated by two different laws adopted in 2001 and 2015 respectively. This approach fragments the public service despite shared goals and functional tasks.

2. The updated Law “On Service in Local Self-Government Bodies” was adopted in 2023 but has not yet entered into force due to its deferred application—no earlier than six months after the end of martial law.

3. The provisions of the new law are only partially harmonised with civil service legislation, particularly with regard to recruitment procedures, disciplinary liability, and performance appraisal systems.

4. Regulation of service in local self-government bodies still relies on outdated secondary legislation, some of which is linked to the repealed 1993 Law “On Civil Service”. This slows down the modernisation of local governance practices.

5. The remuneration system in local self-government bodies remains archaic, in contrast to the civil service, where a grading model and a more predictable, market-oriented pay system have been introduced.

6. Recruitment procedures for service in local self-government bodies do not ensure sufficient transparency, as they grant broad discretionary powers to managers in defining candidate requirements. Methodological guidelines remain non-binding.

7. The education system does not distinguish between civil servants and local self-government officials: specialists are trained under a single field of study—public management and administration—further underscoring the need for a unified approach.

8. During discussions of the new law, ideas regarding the specific features of service in local self-government bodies were promoted; however, in some cases these were shaped by an overly broad interpretation of local self-government autonomy and provisions of the European Charter.

9. At the level of state policy, there are no dedicated initiatives aimed specifically at developing legislation on service in local self-government bodies, although the issue is mentioned in the Ukraine Facility implementation plans and government roadmaps in the context of EU integration.

10. To achieve tangible progress, it is advisable to initiate monitoring by the European Commission of the state of public service legislation in Ukraine, including service in local self-government bodies. This would help advance a comprehensive reform in line with EU principles of good governance.

Read the full analysis at the link.