Analytics

Moratorium on business inspections: what will actually change?

Moratorium on business inspections: what will actually change?
Moratorium on business inspections: what will actually change?

By Presidential Decree of Ukraine No. 538/2025 dated July 21, 2025, the Decision of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) was enacted, which, according to government representatives, is intended to introduce a moratorium on “unjustified inspections and interference by state authorities in business activities, and to stimulate economic growth in Ukraine.” Both the President and the Prime Minister publicly welcomed this move, calling it an important step for the economy.

However, should the business community truly expect a year of peace and quiet? Serhii Zaianchukovskyi, attorney and counsel at LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS, analyzed the implications of this decision.

What has changed so far?

At first glance — nothing yet. The NSDC decision refers to the “introduction of legal and organizational measures concerning a moratorium on unjustified inspections and state interference in business activities.” However, Ukrainian legislation has never allowed for “unjustified inspections” in the first place.

This is a key issue that deserves attention. Businesses in Ukraine have always operated under a framework where every inspection must have a legal basis. This principle stems from both the Law of Ukraine “On the Basic Principles of State Supervision (Control) in the Sphere of Economic Activity” and Part 2 of Article 19 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

The real problem lies not in the absence of legal grounds, but in their formalistic and sometimes abusive use. The NSDC decision is essentially aimed at addressing that abuse — not at imposing a full ban on inspections. In practice, the decision does not introduce new enforcement mechanisms, but simply obliges relevant authorities to “do what they were already legally required to do,” albeit with greater emphasis on actual results.

What is expected to change in the future?

The potential changes for businesses are outlined in various sections of the NSDC decision. It is worth considering each separately, as not all directly relate to the moratorium.

Confiscation of sanctioned assets.
Subparagraph 1 of paragraph 1 of the NSDC decision instructs the Cabinet of Ministers to step up efforts over the next three months to confiscate assets belonging to individuals under economic sanctions involving asset freezes.
This provision is not directly related to inspection bans, but it demonstrates the state’s intent to strengthen financial oversight in this area. For businesses connected to sanctioned individuals, this means heightened risk — regardless of any moratorium.

Protection of foreign investors.
Subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 requires the Cabinet of Ministers to take action within a month to ensure protection of the rights and legal interests of foreign investors, including those with foreign capital.
This provision seems to contradict the previous one: foreign investors are often those most affected by sanctions and asset seizures. A real policy of “protection” would require more consistent, systemic measures — not just NSDC instructions.

Restrictions on inspections.
Mentions of actual inspection limits appear in subparagraph 3 of paragraph 1. It instructs the Cabinet to immediately improve the effectiveness of tax and customs control mechanisms by:
– Restricting inspections of businesses with the status of Authorized Economic Operators (AEOs) and those with low-risk profiles,
– Except for entities dealing with excisable goods (alcohol, tobacco, fuel, etc.).

This is the most relevant provision for the majority of businesses. It clearly shows that the moratorium is not universal. Pressure may decrease — but only for those who meet the criteria of “low-risk” or “authorized operator.”
For others, especially those dealing in excisable goods, inspections are unlikely to disappear.

Implementation of this provision will require the government to draft and adopt a new legal act amending current inspection procedures. Although this may take time, past experience shows that the authorities are capable of acting in “turbo mode” when necessary.

Conclusion

Thus, the main idea behind the moratorium is not to abolish oversight, but to reduce abuses and create a more transparent and predictable business environment. A complete break from inspections will not apply to everyone. For “low-risk” entities, administrative pressure is expected to decrease. However, businesses should closely monitor further developments and the adoption of relevant regulatory acts, which will determine the actual scope of these changes.