Criminal Policy and Strategic Planning in Combating Crime: Prospects and the Role of European Integration

Criminal policy in Ukraine is a widely used term in legal circles. However, there is no single, shared understanding of what it means, and discussion often boils down to complaints about the absence of formal policy documents and the unsystematic process of amending criminal legislation. When one looks at the level of strategies, concepts and forecasting in the field of crime, the problems only multiply. And if we add to this the quality of criminal statistics, the high latency of certain offences, the lack of alternative sources of knowledge about crime and the weak analytical capacity of law enforcement agencies — there is little reason for optimism. By contrast, strategic planning tools in the field of crime prevention are widespread in the EU and in the context of European integration, Ukraine plans to introduce a coherent criminal policy. Hence, what are the prospects for doing so? And what exactly should we understand by this?

[Anti-]Criminal Policy

Criminal policy is the key system-forming element of a state’s policy in combating crime. It develops strategy and tactics and defines ‘Fundamentals of Modern Criminal Law Policy in Ukraine’ Vyacheslav Borisov, Pavlo Fris // Issues of Combating Crime. — 2014. — Issue 27. — Pp. 30–38. the main tasks, principles, directions and objectives of its impact on criminality. Over a century ago, the Ukrainian scholar M. P. Chubynskyi noted that the science of criminal law consists of:

1. criminal dogmatics;
2. criminal aetiology;
3. criminal policy Fris P. A Word About Mykhailo Chubynskyi. Politics in the Fight Against Crime: Status and Prospects: Collective Monograph / Edited by Prof. P.L. Fris. Kyiv, Vaite. 2025. — pp. 10–18. .

The latter essentially formulates the core positions both in the sphere of social reforms aimed at combating crime and in the sphere of their normative underpinning, including the creation of appropriate criminal legislation. In Ukraine, despite a number of doctrinal and practical debates, a stable and coherent criminal policy is still lacking, although its elements are undoubtedly present in the practical activities of state bodies.

At the same time, there is an understanding that correctly determining society’s goals in combating crime makes it possible to:

1. focus state resources on the most vulnerable areas;
2. guide legislative activity;
3. assess the effectiveness of criminal policy overall and the effectiveness of state bodies involved in combating crime;  
4. consolidate the state and society in the fight against crime.

Until recently, for more than 20 years of independence, Ukraine did not have a national doctrine, a concept of combating crime or a programme document outlining a coherent criminal policy. The issue was examined mainly within academic discussions and scholarly research.

There was also no single definition: the term criminal policy is understood to encompass a wide range of issues, and the number of sectoral branches Fris P.L. Criminal Law Policy of the Ukrainian State: Theoretical, Historical and Legal Issues: Monograph. Kyiv: ATIKA, 2005. P. 219; Fris P.L. Ideology of Criminal Law Policy: Monograph / Pavlo Lvovych Fris — Ivano-Frankivsk: Suprun V.P. 2021 — 389 p. — criminal law, criminal procedure, criminology and so on — continues to grow. This is because criminal policy is a component of Conceptual Foundations of the Modern Criminal Procedure in Ukraine: Monograph; N. V. Hlynska, L. M. Loboyko, O. I. Marochkin et al.: edited by O. G. Shylo. Kharkiv: Research Institute of Criminal Law named after Academician V. V. Stashys, National Academy of Internal Affairs, 2016. P. 120. legal policy, which in turn belongs to legal ideology. Not to mention the debates over the adjectives ‘criminal’ and ‘anti-criminal’, as the Ukrainian language, like any other language that uses the Latin root ‘crimen’, treats the word ‘criminal’ flexibly and employs it in two opposite meanings: criminal/offending and relating to combating crime.

But let us set the terminological issues aside for the moment and turn to the substance.

In simplified terms, there is a tendency to define criminal policy primarily as criminal-law policy — that is, the legislator’s approach to the criminalisation or decriminalisation of conduct.

At the same time, a less frequently mentioned aspect of criminal policy is the strategic planning carried out by criminal justice institutions in the field of combating crime. It is this understanding of criminal policy — as strategic planning — that this article focuses on.

Legal Policy on Criminal Policy

At the level of departmental documents, one element of implementing criminal policy is the definition of annual priorities for the activities of the prosecution service and law enforcement agencies.

These documents stress the need to use modern methods and practices for implementing policy in the field of combating crime, to simplify bureaucratic processes and to develop approaches to cooperation and interaction among law enforcement agencies.

An example of such a document is the ‘Priorities for the Activities of Law Enforcement Agencies and the Prosecution Service in the Field of Criminal Policy for 2020’, the aim of which is to guide the work of the prosecution service and the relevant law enforcement bodies and to ensure the application of modern approaches to criminal justice policy in Ukraine.

The document envisaged:

• the development of interagency cooperation, namely effective interaction during pre-trial investigations, the use of joint working groups and other modern platforms for interagency collaboration;
• the introduction of special investigative methods using modern technologies and ensuring compliance with standards of legality and proportionality;
• the implementation of modern criminal analysis systems;
• the application of prioritisation criteria in the investigation of criminal proceedings, taking into account the gravity of the offence, the presence of suspects, the type of preventive measure and the prospects of judicial review;
• the minimisation of excessive multi-level approval of the procedural decisions of investigators and prosecutors.

Subsequent priorities at the level of the prosecution service did not differ in structure or substance. Such priorities can be considered strategic for the field of criminal prosecution.

At the same time, there are priorities concerning institutional reforms within the prosecution service and law enforcement agencies, reflected in sectoral state policy documents in the field of law enforcement. Documents that can be indirectly considered as regulating the state’s criminal policy — at least in specific areas — include:

1. the Overarching Strategic Plan for Reforming Law Enforcement Agencies as Part of the Security and Defence Sector of Ukraine for 2023–2027 (2023);
2. the Action Plan aimed at implementing the Comprehensive Strategic Plan for Reforming Law Enforcement Agencies as Part of the Security and Defence Sector of Ukraine for 2023–2027 (2024);
3. the Rule of Law Roadmap (2025);
4. the Strategy for Combating Organised Crime (2020);
5. the Cybersecurity Strategy of Ukraine (2021);
6. the Concept for Combating Terrorism (2019);
7. the Drug Policy Strategy until 2030 and the approval of the operational action plan for its implementation in 2025–2027 (2025).

Most of these documents include substantive elements of criminal policy, and this is where the law enforcement system should focus its efforts. At the same time, the Overarching Strategic Plan for Reforming Law Enforcement Agencies as Part of the Security and Defence Sector of Ukraine for 2023–2027 and the Strategy for the Development of the Prosecution Service of Ukraine for 2025–2028 provide for the introduction of measures to build a system of strategic planning in the field of combating crime (criminal policy). Today, this is the starting point of the discussion — to finally formalise the previously fragmented practices, intentions and reforms.

Indeed, in 2023, the adoption of the Overarching Strategic Plan (OAS) became one of the European Commission’s recommendations for granting Ukraine EU candidate status.

The document identified six strategic priorities for reforming the law enforcement sphere in Ukraine, among which coherent criminal policy was singled out as a separate priority. Its focus includes crime prevention, the inevitability of liability, the protection of the individual, society and the state from criminal offences and safeguarding the interests of victims.

In this respect, the Plan is revolutionary, as it is essentially the first attempt to anchor at the legislative level the intention to develop and implement a coherent criminal policy, as well as to monitor its implementation by identifying priority areas for combating crime depending on its state, structure, dynamics and trends.

To implement the OAS, by Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 273 of 23 August 2024, an Action Plan was approved, containing a detailed 150-page list of measures for putting the strategic priorities into practice.

However, following the adoption in 2025 of the Rule of Law Roadmap (hereinafter — the Roadmap) — an overarching strategic document that defines the set of reforms within Ukraine’s EU accession negotiations under Chapter 23 ‘Judiciary and Fundamental Rights’ and Chapter 24 ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’ — the Action Plan has, unfairly, become secondary. Although formally, in the section ‘Combating Organised Crime (General Principles of Combating Organised Crime)’ of the Roadmap, the implementation of the Action Plan is explicitly envisaged.

Criminal policy must respond to society’s current security and public order challenges. Moreover, given Ukraine’s acquisition of EU candidate status and the diligent, substantial work of all branches of government to align state activity with EU standards, policy on combating crime must also take into account Ukraine’s obligations to approximate its legislation to EU law under the acquis communautaire chapters. Therefore, criminal policy as a component of state policy must consider the EU’s founding treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (primary legislation), secondary legislation (regulations, directives and so on), EU acts on objectives, policies and operational principles, as well as declarations, resolutions, statements and official decisions of EU institutions and international agreements and treaties concluded by the EU.

The implementation of measures aimed at developing a systemic state criminal policy can be implicitly regarded as part of Ukraine’s European integration tasks. This is because Chapter 24 of the acquis communautaire requires the development of the institutional capacity of the law enforcement system to combat crime, above all, serious crime. By this, the European Union understands organised crime, cybercrime, drug-related crime, financial crime and other criminal offences that cause the greatest harm to society and are often transnational in nature, thus requiring particular attention from the EU.

Strategic planning in the field of combating serious crime, combined with strong, institutionally developed and systematically reformed law enforcement agencies, as well as the proper exercise of the prosecution service’s coordination powers as the key body on the prosecution side in criminal proceedings, can together strengthen Ukraine’s ability to meet its obligations under Chapter 24 of the acquis communautaire. In other words, the issue is not only about institutions, their leadership and staffing (on which Ukrainian experts often focus), but also about the strategic planning tools these institutions employ. Ukraine’s integration into the European law enforcement area will be made possible by a three-tier system of criminal policy documents, the prioritisation of criminal proceedings, a reformed criminal statistics system and the availability of alternative sources of data on crime (in the form of crime surveys and victimology surveys), as well as the use of SOCTA (Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment) and IOCTA (Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment) tools, among others.

The Experience of the European Union

A systemic criminal policy is a key precondition for the sustainable development of society and a guarantee of the rule of law. For example, in the European Union, combating crime is integrated into the overall security policy. The Stockholm Programme (2010–2014) and currently the EU Security Union Strategy for the period 2020 to 2025, define a set of measures to counter organised crime, terrorism, corruption, trafficking in human beings and cybercrime, as well as mechanisms for cooperation among Member States in the area of justice and home affairs. At the same time, it is possible to speak of adopting a separate time-bound law that would set priorities for criminal policy. A unique example within the EU is Estonia, where a special criminal policy law, setting priorities for a ten-year period, is in force until 2030.

As for the current EU Security Union Strategy (2020–2025), the EU contributes to supporting Member States in strengthening security for everyone living in Europe — from combating terrorism and organised crime to preventing and detecting hybrid threats, enhancing the resilience of critical infrastructure, promoting cybersecurity and supporting innovation and research. The Strategy sets out the tools and actions to be developed over a five-year period to ensure security in both the physical and digital environment.

The Strategy sets out four priorities for action at the EU level:

1. A future-proof security environment — new EU rules on the protection and resilience of critical infrastructure and on physical and digital security.
2. Tackling evolving threats — strengthening the capacity of law enforcement agencies in digital investigations and equipping them with appropriate tools, methods and skills, including artificial intelligence, big data and high-performance computing in security policy, to address major threats to citizens such as terrorism, extremism or child sexual abuse.
3. Protecting Europeans from terrorism and organised crime — strengthening action against root causes, effectively prosecuting terrorists, enhancing border security legislation and better use of existing databases and cooperating with non-EU countries and international organisations to end all sources of terrorist financing.
4. A strong European security ecosystem — reinforcing Europol’s mandate and further developing Eurojust to improve links between judicial authorities and law enforcement agencies, strengthening cooperation with Interpol and establishing a European Innovation Hub for Internal Security.

Notably, in many European Union Member States where the prosecution service and law enforcement agencies are subordinated to the executive, primarily the Ministry of Justice, the development of criminal policy acts and the monitoring of their implementation is a simpler task than building a comparable system in Ukraine. In principle, in Ukraine, the Ministry of Justice is also responsible for shaping legal policy, of which criminal policy is a component, yet practical instruments for the implementation of this function are still lacking.

For example, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Ireland presented its Justice Plan 2024, setting out the programme of work the Ministry is to carry out during 2024. The Plan is aimed at achieving the goals and objectives set out in the document ‘A Safe, Fair and Inclusive Ireland: Strategy 2024–2026’.

The priorities of the Plan include:

• ensuring access to justice;
• building a victim-centred system;
• modernising the court system and improving conditions and support for victims and witnesses of crime;
• reducing crime levels;
• strengthening public confidence in the criminal justice system;
• supporting desistance from crime and reducing reoffending.

Thus, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Ireland, within the scope of its powers, sets annual tasks both for law enforcement agencies (work with victims and witnesses, crime reduction — as preventive work) and for judicial authorities, including the prosecution service and the courts (ensuring access to justice, modernising the court system and so on).

This approach simplifies the process of monitoring the results of implementing the Plan, as the Ministry of Justice, as the body vested with the relevant powers, coordinates the activities of the courts and the prosecution service, which are under its direct authority.

Prospects for Implementing Criminal Policy in Ukraine

Strategic Priority No. 2 of the Overarching Strategic Plan and its implementation are of fundamental importance, as they provide the transition from episodic responses to crime to the systemic management of processes within the law enforcement sphere.

The implementation of the tasks set out under this priority is intended to create a single strategic framework for all actors within the law enforcement system, ensuring coherence in policies, legislation and managerial decisions. The OAS sets out the measures to be taken in a consistent and logical sequence.

In particular, the Action Plan defines the following tasks:

• the development of a legislative framework for the institutionalisation of criminal policy, including a Law on the Fundamentals of State Policy in the Field of Combating Crime;
• the introduction of a strategic planning system that provides for regular updates of priorities depending on crime dynamics, and the development of a criminal policy concept based on an assessment of the current situation, which would define long-term cross-sectoral and sectoral, institutional, legal and organisational measures for combating crime;
• the creation of a unified criminal statistics database and an analytical threat assessment system;
• the preparation of a criminal policy concept based on the SOCTA-Ukraine model, which would ensure an objective identification of crime trends and strategic risks;
• the establishment of an effective mechanism for coordination among law enforcement agencies and for developing public-private partnerships in the field of combating crime.

As we can see, the drafters of the Action Plan have taken into account the best international and, specifically, European standards on combating crime, the response of law enforcement agencies to current threats in light of the country’s criminological situation and the use of modern technologies and methodologies in the work of law enforcement agencies.

For example, in European countries, national crime control strategies are based on continuous monitoring of the criminal situation, the results of criminological research and analytical reports by Europol and Eurojust. The SOCTA model already mentioned, which the EU uses to identify strategic threats and shape security policies, has proven effective as a strategic planning tool. It is this model that underpins the development of the Ukrainian SOCTA-Ukraine model, envisaged by the Overarching Strategic Plan for Reforming Law Enforcement Agencies. The SOCTA model has been piloted since 2018 Shadow report to Chapter 23 ‘Justice and Fundamental Rights’ and Chapter 24 ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’ of the European Commission's Report on Ukraine's progress within the European Union Enlargement Package in 2024. — C. 629.

, and, since 2022, an interagency working group has been operating on this matter.

The recently adopted Strategy for the Development of the Prosecution Service of Ukraine for 2025–2028 confirms the prosecution service’s intention to implement a set of measures dedicated to criminal policy. Several measures under Section 2, ‘A results-oriented management system in line with the established priorities of criminal policy’, correspond to OAS Strategic Priority No. 2.

According to the document, over the next three years, the prosecution service plans to:

• introduce a process for collecting, systematising and analysing criminal statistics data (para. 2.1);
• coordinate the identification and implementation of criminal policy priorities on the basis of full and reliable data, to ensure the coherent work of the prosecution service and law enforcement agencies (para. 2.4);
• develop and strengthen the prosecution service’s coordination function in exercising its powers in the field of combating crime and determine priority areas for combating crime depending on its state, structure, dynamics and trends (para. 2.4.1);
• promote the formation of a criminal policy framework under which prosecutors have discretionary powers to prioritise during the organisation of, and procedural oversight over, pre-trial investigations and to resolve other matters in criminal proceedings in accordance with the law (para. 2.5);
• expand the practice of establishing and operating joint investigation teams both with EU countries (with the support of Eurojust) and with other countries to support the work of such teams (para. 2.10.2).

We hope that the newly appointed Prosecutor General shares the importance and fundamental nature of fulfilling Ukraine’s European integration obligations, implementing programme and strategic documents and building a comprehensive and coherent policy on combating crime, within which he will coordinate the activities of law enforcement bodies.

In my ideal world, criminal policy should exist at three levels and consist of:

1. National priorities for combating crime (long-term, top-level criminal policy) — a document to be developed and approved for a long-term period by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The designation of the Government as a key actor in criminal policy is dictated by the crime-control tasks assigned to it under Article 116 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The form of such a policy would be a National Crime Control Plan for a period of 5–10 years.
2. Strategic priorities of law enforcement bodies (medium-term criminal policy). This refers to medium-term programmes in priority areas of combating crime, based on crime forecasting using SOCTA and criminal analysis and taking into account current law enforcement resources, as well as the socio-political and security situation. The form of such policy consists of medium-term priorities: strategies, plans and priorities of law enforcement bodies for one to three years.
3. Priorities in individual criminal proceedings (short-term criminal policy), which form part of management within the system. It is the prosecutor who has the ability to adjust lower-level policy directions depending on the criminal situation, as the prosecutor determines the strategy of criminal prosecution in a specific criminal proceeding. The form of such policy consists of standards for pre-trial investigation, prosecution plans and similar instruments.

To support the prioritisation of resources, the concept of the economic effectiveness of the resources spent by an institution to carry out its statutory tasks has also been introduced (para. 4.3.1 of the Action Plan). This involves analysing whether expenditure corresponds to the result and to the achievement of the objective set for the law enforcement system. An example of such a resource-calculation algorithm would include: the time spent by the head of the pre-trial investigation body, the detective, the analyst and operational officers; the cost of forensic examinations, fuel, stationery, specialist work and operational funds; and, in future, the time spent by the prosecutor, the judge’s assistant and the investigating judge.

The Coordination Role of the Prosecution Service and Criminal Policy

A key unresolved issue is the identification of the actor responsible for updating priorities, initiating legislative amendments based on the findings of crime analysis and coordinating the activities of law enforcement agencies in the prevention of, and the fight against, crime.

The coordination of law enforcement activities is an objectively essential condition for combating crime. It plays an important role in consolidating the efforts of law enforcement agencies, which makes it possible to significantly increase the overall effect of measures to counter crime. The goals and tasks of coordination consist in ensuring coherent and targeted action by law enforcement agencies in combating offences and in strengthening legality and public order. Coordination, aimed at eliminating parallelism, duplication and fragmentation, requires each body to perform its assigned tasks actively, creatively and effectively and does not permit the blurring or substitution of institutional functions.

According to Part 2 of Article 25 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Public Prosecution Service’, the Prosecutor General, the heads of the relevant prosecution offices and their first deputies and deputies, in accordance with the allocation of responsibilities, coordinate the activities of law enforcement agencies of the corresponding level in the field of combating crime. However, the same article provides that the main form of coordination is the holding of coordination meetings with the heads of law enforcement agencies, at which information on their activities in the field of combating crime is presented. The decisions of a coordination meeting are binding on all the law enforcement agencies specified therein.

But is the mechanism of convening coordination meetings with representatives of law enforcement agencies sufficient, and is it capable of achieving the ambitious goal of implementing a coherent criminal policy?

To regulate crime control policy, the OAS Action Plan provides for the preparation of a draft law defining the content of the coordination role of the prosecution service in general and of the Prosecutor General in particular, in relation to law enforcement agencies when exercising their powers to combat crime.

Until 2016, the activities of the prosecution service were regulated by a separate Chapter VII of the Constitution of Ukraine. However, in line with European standards, its functions were significantly narrowed to criminal prosecution, and the prosecution service was placed under Chapter VIII, ‘Justice’. Law enforcement agencies, meanwhile, remained within the executive branch, which raises a logical question: who exactly should coordinate law enforcement agencies in Ukraine? If the issue concerns criminal proceedings (and public prosecution and procedural oversight are the core functions of the prosecution service), then it is clear that the coordination of the activities of pre-trial investigation bodies belongs to the functions of the prosecution service.

The coordination powers of the prosecution service derive from its constitutional function of organising and exercising procedural oversight over pre-trial investigations — a function whose content still requires clarification in Ukrainian legislation. In this light, it is long overdue to abandon the outdated perception of the prosecution service’s ‘coordination powers’ as merely convening operational meetings. Instead, these powers should be viewed more broadly through the prism of strategic planning in the field of combating crime (criminal policy).

The State of Implementation of Public Policy Documents

According to Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 792-r of 23 August 2024, the bodies responsible for implementing the Action Plan is required to submit quarterly information on the state of implementation to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Ministry of Internal Affairs, in turn, is required to provide the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine with quarterly updates on the implementation of the Action Plan.

At the same time, the results of the Government’s monitoring of the OAS implementation are generally not made public. However, in terms of legislative activity, progress on the OAS implementation can be traced through the official website of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, where registered draft laws are published.

The Action Plan tasks the Prosecutor General’s Office, as the primary implementing body, with preparing a large number of substantial and fundamental draft laws.

Draft laws prepared by the Prosecutor General’s Office are supposed to be submitted to the body responsible for shaping state policy in the field of justice. Yet this mechanism is not functioning. Alternatively, such drafts may be submitted directly to the Government if they concern the implementation of state policy documents already mentioned, since the Office is the primary implementing body — albeit subject to consent, as it is not subordinated to the Government. However, the Office has reverted to an earlier practice: transmitting draft laws to ‘friendly’ Members of Parliament for registration. This practice is questionable from the perspective of quality policy development by stakeholders, as such draft laws bypass the relevant Government approval procedures, which are particularly important for matters involving the implementation of criminal policy.

In May–June 2025, the Prosecutor General’s Office, the co-implementers of measure 2.1.3, together with the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, research institutions and representatives of civil society organisations, prepared a fundamentally important document to implement subparagraph 2.1.3 of the Action Plan. I had the opportunity to be a co-author of this document, which is why I am writing about it. This draft law was intended to introduce a strategic planning system in the field of state criminal policy and to define the powers of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine regarding the development, approval and implementation of the criminal policy concept and the national crime prevention plan, taking into account the goal of gradually adapting Ukraine’s legislation to EU acquis. However, the draft law has still not been registered in the Verkhovna Rada, despite the expiry of the deadline for completing this task under the Action Plan.

As for the Strategy for the Development of the Prosecution Service of Ukraine for 2025–2028, it was approved only at the beginning of October. The Action Plan for its implementation has not yet been adopted, but the very existence of this document should be viewed as a positive signal of the prosecution service’s further readiness to work on these changes in the criminal justice system. Although over the past year the prosecution service has lost its leadership in this process, it is never too late to restore it.

To summarise:

1. Criminal policy is most often understood as the policy of criminalising or decriminalising conduct under criminal law. Criminal procedural policy or criminal policy in the narrower sense — concerning strategic planning in the field of combating crime — is discussed far less frequently. Yet this is precisely what is currently most lacking in the work of the prosecution service and law enforcement agencies.
2. Strategic planning in the field of criminal policy is a modern method of effectively combating crime — from the prosecution service’s coordinating instruments as the key actor in criminal proceedings and periodic plans formalised in documents prepared by the Government in cooperation with stakeholders, to the prioritisation of resources in individual criminal proceedings.
3. Strategic planning, alongside other tools — from SOCTA to the reform of criminal statistics and the introduction of mechanisms for measuring alternative knowledge of crime — enables the institutional capacity of the law enforcement system to combat serious crime. This is the task of Chapter 24 of the acquis communautaire and therefore an integral part of Ukraine’s European integration obligations under the ‘Fundamentals’ chapter.
4. Strategic planning in the field of combating crime (criminal policy) may be expressed through a three-tier structure: 1) national priorities for combating crime, adopted by the Government for a period of 5–10 years; 2) strategic priorities of law enforcement bodies, defined by these bodies for a period of one to three years; and 3) priorities in individual criminal proceedings (short-term criminal policy), which form part of management within the system. Crucially, the prosecution service will remain the key institution coordinating the sphere of criminal prosecution, and policy will be based on both official and alternative data on crime.
5. The Overarching Strategic Plan for 2023–2027 and the Strategy for the Reform of the Prosecution Service of Ukraine for 2025–2028 clearly set out governmental plans to introduce comprehensive legislative changes aimed at implementing a coherent criminal policy. Work on this has begun and, despite complex professional debates and a certain loss of the prosecution service’s leadership role in the process, it still has a real chance of success.