When the Government Listens: Successful Petition Cases in Ukraine

In Ukraine, petitions are an essential tool that allows citizens to directly appeal to authorities — from local councils to the President, Cabinet of Ministers, and Parliament. Enshrined in Article 40 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the right to petition guarantees everyone the opportunity to express their views and receive a response. But do petitions truly bring change? This article explores how petitions can influence government decisions, what shortcomings exist in addressing them, and why only some succeed in achieving their goals.

Petitions are designed to provide a direct link between citizens and the government in the decision-making process. They make it possible to initiate public discussion on issues of social importance, foster non-partisan dialogue, and strengthen democratic legitimacy. Petitions also serve as a source of information for authorities — publicly signalling the positions of particular social groups on specific issues. Even when a petition doesn’t lead to immediate action, it can help shape public opinion and, in turn, influence the political agenda.

The effectiveness of petitions largely depends on how they are processed and what rules govern their review. The petitioner’s guaranteed right to receive a formal response is a critical condition for their impact. In Ukraine, petitions submitted to central government bodies are considered only after collecting the required 25,000 signatures. In this context, the level of media visibility and the issue’s relevance are key: petitions that gain public attention are more likely to succeed — even if that attention is driven by popular or populist themes.

During martial law, the highest number of petitions that collected more than 25,000 signatures were addressed to the President of Ukraine — 351 in total. Most of these (213) concerned posthumous awards for service members, which can be explained by the President’s constitutional powers and the high level of public support for such initiatives. During the same period, 37 petitions addressed to the Cabinet of Ministers reached the required threshold, and only four were submitted to Parliament.

Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, the President, Verkhovna Rada, and Cabinet of Ministers’ responses to petitions have shared two features.

First, one of the most common responses to petitions is a reference to the lack of authority on the part of the recipient to resolve the issue raised. This points to several recurring problems in how petitions are handled.

1. Petition initiators often don’t fully grasp the limits of power held by the authorities they’re addressing. This results in a backlog of petitions that fall outside a given body’s jurisdiction — and, predictably, elicit a formal reply with no follow-up.
2. There’s also a legal gap: government bodies aren’t obliged to act on petitions that don’t fall within their remit. That means many petitions, even those with tens of thousands of signatures, simply vanish from public view without further discussion or action.  There is one exception — the President — who has the authority to forward such petitions to other institutions formally. However, that mechanism only applies within the boundaries of presidential powers. In short, the option to transfer socially important petitions exists, but it’s limited.

Second, one of the most common responses to petitions — particularly from the Cabinet of Ministers — is a promise to “consider the issue raised”. While this may come across as a box-ticking exercise, it does include a formal commitment to discuss the issue. And that is something: it can trigger internal discussions within the government and push the topic into the public sphere.

The catch? There’s little way to track whether that promise was actually fulfilled. In most cases, there are no transparent mechanisms to monitor whether the issue was genuinely reviewed — or what, if anything, came of it.

Successful Petitions to the President of Ukraine

Curbing Online Gambling: Tackling Addiction in the Ranks During Wartime

One of the most striking examples of an effective e-petition involved the call to restrict online casinos in Ukraine. The issue was publicly raised by service member Pavlo Petrychenko, who drew attention to the growing problem of gambling addiction among military personnel. A petition calling for an immediate ban on online gambling for service members during martial law quickly gathered the required 25,000 signatures.

In response, the President of Ukraine convened a National Security and Defence Council meeting, which led to a set of restrictive measures. These included a ban on access to gambling platforms for military personnel, new controls on user accounts, caps on spending and time spent gaming, and the launch of an awareness campaign on the dangers of gambling addiction. A draft law strengthening the regulation of the gambling industry was also supported. As a result, the petition led to concrete measures aimed at reducing the risks of gambling addiction.

Opening Officials’ Asset Declarations

Another example of a successful petition was the demand to veto a draft law that sought to delay the reopening of the public register of officials’ asset declarations. Verkhovna Rada’s refusal to ensure immediate access to e-declarations — as proposed in Draft Law No. 9534 — sparked widespread public outrage. Within just three hours, the corresponding petition had collected over 25,000 signatures.

The President’s response was swift: the draft law was vetoed and returned to Parliament with a demand to open the declarations. This happened before the official response to the petition was published — but after it had reached the required number of signatures.

The President justified his decision by citing the need to uphold national anti-corruption principles and honour commitments to international partners. Parliament promptly reviewed the proposals and adopted a revised law mandating the immediate publication of declarations and requiring officials to submit reports for previous years. Thanks to the petition, transparency and openness in the public sector were preserved — even during wartime.

Successful Petitions to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine

Petition in Support of Tabletki.ua

The publication of a draft resolution by the Cabinet of Ministers proposing changes to the licensing conditions for retail trade in medicinal products sparked outrage among consumers and online service providers. According to the draft, information about the availability and prices of medicines could only be published on pharmacy websites — effectively banning independent price aggregators like Tabletki.ua.

In response, an e-petition was launched demanding that the government reconsider the draft regulation. Within less than a day, it collected the required 25,000 signatures and eventually surpassed 30,000. The government had to respond. Negotiations took place between service representatives, the Ministry of Health, and the State Service of Medicines, resulting in the suspension of the proposed changes. In its official reply, the Cabinet of Ministers stated that the draft resolution would be revised, taking into account the suggestions of the public.

Introducing Women-Only Compartments on Ukrainian Railways

Against the backdrop of growing public demand for safer travel conditions for women on long-distance trains, an e-petition was launched calling for the introduction of dedicated women-only compartments. The petition garnered support from over 25,000 people.

In its official response, the government noted that Ukrzaliznytsia independently makes decisions within its mandate. However, the proposal for separate compartments would be considered, as the petition had clearly demonstrated a legitimate public request. Shortly afterwards, Ukrzaliznytsia announced the launch of a pilot project. In June 2023, the first women-only compartments became available for booking via the company’s mobile app. Their introduction was accompanied by carriage upgrades, including video surveillance and panic buttons for added safety.

Successful Petitions to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine

Strengthening the defence capacity of communities

Of the four petitions reviewed by the Verkhovna Rada, only one can be considered effective — the petition in support of Draft Law No. 9560-1. The draft proposes amendments to the Budget Code to give communities clear legal grounds to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine using local budget funds. Without such changes, local government officials providing material assistance to the military risked becoming subjects of criminal investigations.

In its official response, the Parliamentary Budget Committee stated that Draft Law No. 9559-d would be adopted first, after which Draft Law No. 9560-1 and its alternatives would be prepared for a first reading. Indeed, the first draft was supported by Parliament in June 2024. However, since then, the draft has remained in “legislative limbo”— neither signed nor vetoed by the President of Ukraine. This has made its implementation impossible and continues to spark public frustration. 

Draft Law No. 9560-1 and its alternatives have still not been reviewed. Nonetheless, the logic of the process suggests that the petition was partially successful: at the time the official response was issued, the petition’s demands had been taken into account. Since Parliament stated that further work on Draft No. 9560-1 would begin after the adoption of No. 9559-d, the current delay does not lie within the Verkhovna Rada’s direct responsibility. The President’s failure to either sign or veto Draft Law No. 9559-d has effectively blocked the next steps outlined in the official response to the petition.

In the end, e-petitions in Ukraine hold considerable potential as a tool of direct democracy — one that allows citizens to influence government decisions and shape the public agenda. Successful cases such as the restriction of online casinos, the opening of officials’ asset declarations, or the introduction of women-only compartments on trains demonstrate that when demands are clearly articulated, aligned with the recipient’s powers, and backed by strong media attention, petitions can lead to real change. At the same time, vague procedures, limited referral mechanisms, and formalistic replies often reduce petitions to a mere imitation of dialogue. Still, even when a petition doesn’t result in immediate resolution, it can serve as a starting point for institutional dialogue — within government or between the state and civil society. What matters is that the issue is raised, placed on the agenda, and spoken about publicly. That, too, is a result.