Ukraine Recording Laws: One-Party Consent in Practice (2026)

Ukraine has no explicit one-party consent statute, but in practice you can record your own conversation: Criminal Code Article 163's own text punishes secretly intercepting communications between OTHER people, and a separate line of Supreme Court evidentiary rulings treats a participant's own recording as admissible rather than covert interception. Disclosing a recording to outsiders, and using covert interception equipment against people you are not talking to, carry separate criminal exposure of up to 7 years.

Ukraine has no explicit statute making it one-party consent, but the practical answer for recording a conversation you are part of is yes. Article 163 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine punishes violating the secrecy of someone else's correspondence or calls, and legal commentary on that text treats the offense as complete only once a person who was not part of the communication becomes acquainted with its content, a textual reading that leaves a participant's own recording outside the offense. Separately, a Supreme Court evidentiary line under the Criminal Procedure Code (case No. 758/1780/17, 2022, and case No. 450/1952/18, 2026) treats a participant's own recording as admissible rather than unlawful interception, without interpreting Article 163 itself. Article 31 of the Constitution of Ukraine still requires a court order before the STATE may intercept private communications. Martial law, in effect since February 24, 2022, layers additional recording restrictions on top of this framework, with criminal penalties reaching 12 years for disseminating military information to benefit an aggressor state.

Information last verified on 2026-07-28 (one-party consent classification corrected on this date; see changelog below). This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses the recording consent law of Ukraine under the Criminal Code of Ukraine (No. 2341-III, 2001, as amended), the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Code of Criminal Procedure (No. 4651-VI, 2012), the Law on Personal Data Protection (No. 2297-VI, 2010), and the Constitution of Ukraine. It covers wartime restrictions under martial law declared February 24, 2022. It does not address European Union member-state recording law; for EU country comparisons see World Recording Laws.

Quick Answer: Is Ukraine One-Party or All-Party Consent?

Ukraine has no explicit statute making it one-party consent. The one-party-leaning conclusion rests on two separate threads. First, the text of Article 163 of the Criminal Code criminalizes violating the secrecy of another person's correspondence, phone calls, or other communications, and Ukrainian legal commentary on that text treats the offense as complete only from the moment someone who is NOT a party to the communication becomes acquainted with its content, meaning a participant's own recording does not complete it. Second, and separately, a line of Supreme Court evidentiary rulings under the Criminal Procedure Code holds that a participant's own recording of a call is not "removal of information from transport telecommunication networks," meaning it is not the kind of covert interception that requires prior judicial authorization: case No. 758/1780/17 (December 2, 2022, Third Chamber, Criminal Cassation Court) established this, and case No. 450/1952/18 (May 21, 2026, Second Chamber, Criminal Cassation Court, in an unrelated robbery prosecution under Article 187) applied it again; neither ruling interprets or even mentions Article 163. Article 31 of the Constitution guarantees secrecy of correspondence against STATE intrusion, permitting exceptions only by court order to prevent crime or establish the truth in a criminal case; it does not, by its terms, bar a participant from recording their own conversation. Taken together, these two threads point toward one-party consent in practice for a participant's own recording, though there is no bright-line statute saying so the way there is in, for example, the United States (federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. § 2511) or Poland (participant consent recognized by statute). Two caveats matter: disclosing a recording to an outsider, or using specialized covert interception equipment against a conversation you are not part of, can still trigger criminal exposure (Article 163 Part 2, up to 7 years, or Article 182 for unlawful dissemination of personal information); and the Civil Code's Article 307 imposes a SEPARATE civil consent requirement specifically for photographing or filming a person, independent of the criminal audio-recording question addressed here.

Constitutional Foundation: Articles 31 and 32

Ukraine's recording law rests on two constitutional provisions that together establish privacy of communications as a fundamental right.

Article 31 of the Constitution of Ukraine provides:

"Everyone is guaranteed privacy of mail, telephone conversations, telegraph and other correspondence. Exceptions may be established only by the court in cases envisaged by law, with the purpose of preventing crime or ascertaining the truth in the course of the investigation of a criminal case, if it is impossible to obtain information by other means."

Article 32 extends this protection to personal and family life more broadly, prohibiting the unauthorized collection, storage, use, or dissemination of confidential personal information. Article 32 also establishes the right of every person to access information about themselves held by state or municipal bodies or private entities, and to demand correction of inaccurate information.

Together, Articles 31 and 32 establish three principles that run through every other recording law provision in Ukraine: (1) privacy of communications is a fundamental right, not a privilege; (2) any limitation on that right requires judicial authorization; and (3) limitations must be necessary because other investigative means are unavailable.

ECHR Enforcement of These Protections

The European Court of Human Rights tested Ukraine's compliance with these constitutional commitments directly in Yakymchuk and Others v. Ukraine (decided February 13, 2025). The court ruled unanimously that Ukraine violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to private life) by conducting unlawful surveillance against three public officials and their defense lawyer. Ukrainian authorities tapped the lawyer's phone conversations and conducted covert video monitoring without valid court authorization. The ECHR held that secret surveillance measures must meet "rigorous requirements in terms of clarity and precision" and that Ukraine's procedures failed to provide adequate legal remedies for the applicants to challenge the surveillance. Ukraine was ordered to pay reparations to the applicants.

This ruling is significant for practitioners: it confirms that Ukraine's constitutional requirement of prior court authorization for STATE interception of private communications is reinforced at the supranational level through ECHR jurisprudence, and that procedural failures in obtaining court authorization void the legality of any surveillance regardless of its substantive purpose. It addresses state surveillance, not a private participant recording their own conversation, which is a separate question addressed below.

Criminal Code Articles 162, 163, and 182

Three articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (No. 2341-III, 2001, as amended) form the core criminal prohibition on unauthorized recording and privacy violations.

Article 162: Inviolability of the Home

Article 162 criminalizes illegal entry into a person's home or other lawful residence, conducting an illegal search, or violating the inviolability of a person's correspondence by unauthorized physical access. While Article 162 addresses physical intrusion rather than electronic interception, it is relevant to covert recording because placing a hidden recording device inside a private residence without authorization constitutes an illegal entry offense as well as a communication-secrecy offense under Article 163. Part 1 carries a fine or corrective labor up to 2 years. Part 2 (aggravated by official capacity or use of violence) carries imprisonment from 2 to 5 years.

Article 163: Violation of Privacy of Correspondence

Article 163 criminalizes violation of the secrecy of correspondence, telephone conversations, telegraph communications, and other communications transmitted by means of communication or via computers. Its own text limits the offense to violating the secrecy of ANOTHER person's correspondence or calls, and Ukrainian legal commentary treats the offense as complete only once someone who is NOT a party to the communication becomes acquainted with its content, so the provision targets outside interception and eavesdropping (a telecom employee, a hacker, a third party running a wiretap) rather than a participant's own recording of a conversation they are part of. No Supreme Court decision interprets Article 163 on this point. A separate line of Supreme Court rulings addresses a related but distinct question, whether a participant's own recording counts as covert interception requiring prior judicial authorization under the Criminal Procedure Code, discussed in Recording as Evidence below.

Part 1 (basic offense): A person who violates the secrecy of another person's correspondence, telephone conversations, or other communications faces:

• A fine of 50 to 100 non-taxable minimum incomes (periodically indexed by the Verkhovna Rada)
• Correctional labor for up to 2 years
• Restraint of liberty for up to 3 years

Part 2 (aggravated offense): The penalty escalates to imprisonment for 3 to 7 years where the violation involves any of the following circumstances:

• The offense is committed repeatedly (recidivism)
• The target is a state or public official, public figure, or journalist (Article 171 protections run parallel)
• The offender holds an official position enabling the violation
• The offender uses specialized surveillance, interception, or wiretapping equipment

The distinction between Part 1 and Part 2 matters for THIRD-PARTY interception: someone who is not a party to a call but secretly taps or listens in on it faces Part 1 penalties for a first offense, rising to Part 2's 3-to-7-year range if they are a repeat offender, target a public official or journalist, use their official position, or use specialized covert interception equipment. A participant recording their own conversation does not fall under Article 163 at all, on the statute's own third-party text and the commentary discussed above; a separate line of Supreme Court evidentiary rulings, discussed in Recording as Evidence below, reaches the same practical result through the Criminal Procedure Code without interpreting Article 163.

Article 182: Unlawful Collection and Dissemination of Personal Information

Article 182 operates alongside Article 163 to address the data-processing dimension of privacy violations.

Part 1: Unlawful collection, storage, use, or dissemination of confidential information about a person without their consent carries:

• A fine up to 302,800 UAH (as of 2025 indexing)
• Correctional labor for up to 2 years
• Restriction of liberty for up to 3 years

Part 2 (aggravated): Where the violation is committed repeatedly, or results in substantial harm to a protected interest, the penalty is imprisonment for up to 5 years.

The difference between Articles 163 and 182 is one of conduct: Article 163 targets the act of intercepting or recording private communications without consent, while Article 182 targets what is done with personal information after it is obtained. Someone who is not part of a call but secretly intercepts it violates Article 163 for the interception itself, and may separately violate Article 182 if they then store, share, or use what they gained to harm the subject. A PARTICIPANT who records their own call does not violate Article 163 for the act of recording, but could still expose themselves to an Article 182 claim if they later disseminate the recording in a way that unlawfully harms the other party, since Article 182 addresses what is done with personal information after it is obtained, independent of how it was captured.

Related Criminal Provisions

Code of Criminal Procedure: Covert Investigative Actions (Articles 258-264)

The Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine (No. 4651-VI, 2012) governs the circumstances under which Ukrainian law enforcement may lawfully intercept private communications. Articles 258 through 266 establish the framework for "covert investigative (detective) actions" that interfere with private communication.

Authorization Requirements

Under Article 247 of the CPC, most covert investigative actions require authorization from an investigating judge of the Court of Appeal based on a petition from the prosecutor or investigator. The authorization must specify:

• The specific covert action to be taken
• The person or object targeted
• The duration of the authorization (capped at 2 months, extendable)
• The criminal proceeding to which the action relates

Article 248 requires that covert actions targeting the private communications of a defense lawyer require authorization from the Head of the Pre-Trial Investigation in addition to judicial oversight, reflecting the ECHR's concern about lawyer-client privilege confirmed in the Yakymchuk ruling.

The Gravity Threshold

Articles 263 (collecting information from electronic communication networks) and 264 (collecting information from electronic information systems) apply exclusively in criminal proceedings involving grave or especially grave crimes, as defined by Article 12 of the Criminal Code. Covert interception of telephone or internet communications for minor or medium-gravity offenses is not authorized under the CPC.

Authorized Agencies

The following agencies may conduct covert investigative actions under CPC authorization:

• National Police (most common domestic investigations)
• Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) (national security, counterintelligence)
• National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) (corruption investigations)
• State Bureau of Investigations (SBI)
• State Border Guard Service
• State Penitentiary Service

The SBU holds the broadest surveillance authority of these agencies, including under martial law for counterintelligence and counterterrorism operations. As documented by the 2024 US State Department Country Report on Ukraine, the SBU's surveillance activities have drawn scrutiny for consistency with the judicial-authorization requirements of the CPC.

Wartime Modifications

The Law on Electronic Communications (No. 1089-IX, in force January 1, 2022) and the Law on Intelligence permit restrictions on telecommunications for antiterrorism operations and during martial law. Human rights monitors have documented instances of surveillance conducted outside formal CPC authorization procedures under wartime conditions. The ECHR's Yakymchuk ruling (February 2025) is a binding reminder that wartime circumstances do not remove the obligation to obtain court authorization before conducting surveillance.

Civil Code Article 307: Photography and Video Recording

While the Criminal Code addresses the criminal dimension, Article 307 of the Civil Code of Ukraine governs the civil right to control recordings of yourself and creates a parallel civil cause of action independent of criminal prosecution.

Article 307(1) establishes the general rule: a natural person may only be photographed, filmed, or recorded on video with their consent. By its terms this covers photography and video/film capture; it does NOT extend to a plain audio recording of a conversation, which is governed instead by Criminal Code Article 163 discussed above.

The Public Event Exception

Consent is presumed if recording occurs openly at public gatherings, on streets, at conferences, rallies, or other events of a public nature. Key details of this exception:

• The recording must be conducted openly, not concealed
• The setting must be genuinely public (a street, a rally, a press conference)
• A person's presence at a public event constitutes implied consent to open recording
• This exception does not extend to private meetings held in public venues (a business lunch in a restaurant is not a public event)

Children and Minors

Recording minors requires the consent of parents or legal guardians. Ukrainian courts apply a "double consent" standard for minors: separate consent for the act of filming and for distributing the images. A child's presence in a public space does not constitute automatic consent to recording.

Civil Remedies

A person whose Article 307 rights are violated may seek:

• An injunction requiring the recording to be deleted or withheld from publication
• Compensation for moral damages
• Prohibition on future use of the recording

Civil liability under Article 307 runs independently of any criminal prosecution. A civil court may award damages even where a prosecutor declines to bring criminal charges.

Phone Calls: How One-Party Consent Works in Practice

A participant may record their own phone call in Ukraine without the other party's knowledge or consent: Article 163 of the Criminal Code targets someone who is NOT a party to a call secretly listening in on or recording it, not a participant recording a call they are part of.

The Law on Electronic Communications (No. 1089-IX, in force January 1, 2022) reinforced these protections. Article 119 requires telecommunications providers to ensure the safety of subscriber data, including call content, service records, location data, and records of call attempts.

Can a Participant Record Their Own Call?

Yes, on two independent grounds. First, Article 163's own text and the commentary on it treat the offense as complete only once a person who was NOT part of the communication becomes acquainted with its content, so a party recording their own call gains no information they were not already entitled to and does not complete the offense. Second, and separately, a line of Supreme Court rulings under the Criminal Procedure Code, case No. 758/1780/17 (December 2, 2022) and case No. 450/1952/18 (May 21, 2026, an unrelated robbery prosecution), holds that a participant's own phone recording is not "removal of information from transport telecommunication networks," so it is not the kind of covert interception that requires prior judicial authorization; neither ruling discusses Article 163. The statutory reading and the evidentiary case law point the same direction independently of each other.

Two things remain risky. First, disclosing the recording to an outsider, or publishing it, can expose the participant to Article 182 liability if the disclosure harms the other party. Second, using specialized covert interception equipment (rather than an ordinary phone or recorder) can itself trigger Part 2's aggravated tier in some readings, so stick to a normal recording app or device.

Law Enforcement Phone Recording

Ukrainian authorities may record phone calls only under the narrow CPC framework described above: a court order from a Court of Appeal, limited to grave or especially serious crimes, specifying the person and duration, when other investigative methods have failed (CPC Article 248, Article 263).

In-Person Conversations

Article 163's third-party framing extends beyond phone calls to all forms of private communication: a person who is not part of a face-to-face conversation and secretly records or eavesdrops on it falls under the same criminal framework as phone interception, while a participant recording their own in-person conversation does not.

Article 307 of the Civil Code adds a civil dimension: video recording someone in a private setting without their consent can give rise to a tort claim for damages, independent of any criminal prosecution.

Where the Line Falls

Watch out: The public-event consent presumption in Civil Code Article 307 applies only to OPEN video or photo recording; concealing a camera at a press conference or rally to film someone does not qualify, and filming them then needs their consent. Separately, Article 163 of the Criminal Code targets covertly intercepting a conversation between OTHER people you are not part of, in public or private, whether or not the device is concealed. Recording your OWN conversation, even discreetly, is not itself an Article 163 offense.

Workplace Recording and Employee Monitoring

Ukrainian labor law permits employers to monitor employees within defined limits. The Labour Code gives employers the right to oversee workers and maintain workplace discipline, which can include certain forms of monitoring, provided it meets the requirements of the Law on Personal Data Protection (No. 2297-VI, 2010).

What Employers Can Do

Employers may conduct workplace surveillance only if all of the following conditions are met:

• Employees receive advance notice about monitoring methods and purposes before monitoring begins
• The monitoring is proportionate to its stated purpose (safety, security, productivity)
• Employees are informed about what personal data is collected, how it is processed, and how long it is retained
• No monitoring takes place in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy (restrooms, changing rooms, break rooms, prayer rooms)

What Employers Cannot Do

• Install hidden devices to record conversations BETWEEN employees that the employer is not a party to (third-party interception under Article 163)
• Record conversations between employees the employer is not part of, without their consent
• Use surveillance data for purposes beyond the disclosed reason (violates Article 182)
• Make automated employment decisions significantly affecting employee rights without a human review step (a requirement that Draft Law 8153 will formalize upon adoption)

Covertly recording conversations BETWEEN employees, or between an employee and someone else, when the employer is not a participant, carries the same Article 163 exposure as any other third-party interception, escalating to Part 2's 3-to-7-year range if specialized interception equipment is used. An employer who is a party to a call or meeting with an employee is not committing an Article 163 offense by recording it, but the labor-law notice and proportionality duties above still apply, and using the recording to harm the employee beyond the disclosed purpose can trigger Article 182.

Business Call Recording

Because the business is itself a party to the call, Article 163 does not require it to obtain the customer's consent merely to record the call. The operative constraint instead is the Law on Personal Data Protection: recording captures personal data (voice, and often other details discussed), so the business needs a lawful basis to process it and must give data subjects the transparency the law requires. In practice, that means businesses should:

• Announce at the start of the call that it is being recorded and explain the purpose (the standard way to satisfy the transparency requirement)
• Store recordings securely and delete them when the stated purpose is fulfilled
• Honor subject access and retention-limit requests under the Law on Personal Data Protection

Announcing the recording and explaining its purpose remains the safest practice even though it is not literally an Article 163 consent requirement, since it is how a business demonstrates lawful, transparent processing under data-protection law.

Video Surveillance and CCTV

Video surveillance in Ukraine is governed by the Law on Personal Data Protection (No. 2297-VI) and Article 307 of the Civil Code. CCTV footage that captures identifiable individuals constitutes personal data.

General CCTV Rules

• Surveillance cameras monitoring spaces accessible to the public must display clear signage notifying people they are being recorded
• Recorded footage must be stored securely with documented access controls and retention periods
• Cameras may not be directed at private residences, neighboring private spaces, or any area with a reasonable expectation of privacy
• Retention periods must be proportionate to the surveillance purpose; the Law on Personal Data Protection requires that data not be retained longer than necessary

Prohibited CCTV Placement

Hidden cameras placed in areas of intimate activity violate both Article 307 (no consent) and Article 182 (unlawful collection of personal information). Recording in bathrooms, changing rooms, or bedrooms without consent triggers criminal exposure under both provisions.

Martial Law and Wartime Recording Restrictions

Since February 24, 2022, Ukraine has operated under martial law, which the Verkhovna Rada has extended repeatedly and which remained in effect as of May 2026. Martial law introduces recording restrictions that apply on top of, and in some cases override, the civilian framework.

Article 114-2: Military Information Dissemination

Article 114-2 of the Criminal Code was enacted on April 6, 2022 and criminalizes unauthorized dissemination of two categories of information:

1. Information about the movement and delivery of arms, weapons, and military supplies to Ukraine
2. Information about the movement, location, or positioning of the Armed Forces of Ukraine or other Ukrainian armed forces

The penalty structure is graduated by severity:

• 3 to 5 years imprisonment: Filming or capturing images of military positions, checkpoints, or troop concentrations without dissemination
• 5 to 8 years imprisonment: Publishing or sharing that footage (social media, messaging apps, websites, or sending to chatbots all constitute "dissemination")
• 8 to 12 years imprisonment: Violations committed by an organized group, for financial gain, or to benefit a hostile state or armed group

Ukrainian courts had issued more than 100 convictions under Article 114-2 as of 2025. Courts have treated the act of video recording military positions as a potentially complete offense even before dissemination occurs, treating filming as an "unfinished" Article 114-2 crime.

The sole lawful exception is information made publicly available by the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Ministry of Defense, the Security Service, or the Main Intelligence Directorate, or disseminated with written permission from those bodies.

Dashcams During Martial Law

There is no formal legislative ban on dashcam use on public roads. Drivers may legally record traffic incidents for insurance or court purposes. However, dashcam footage that inadvertently captures military positions, checkpoints, or troop concentrations can trigger Article 114-2 liability. The risk arises not from recording the road, but from what the camera incidentally captures. Regional enforcement varies, with some areas applying stricter interpretations near active military zones.

Media Accreditation in Military Zones

Journalists, bloggers, and volunteers who want to record military personnel, equipment, or fortifications in active or near-active zones must hold accreditation under Armed Forces Order No. 73 (March 3, 2022). Recording without accreditation in designated military zones can result in detention and equipment seizure.

Watch out: Sending a video clip of a checkpoint or troop movement to a private messaging group is "dissemination" under Article 114-2. Ukrainian prosecutors have charged individuals for sharing footage via personal group chats and chat bots. Err strongly toward not recording any military-related activity, even with a civilian device.

Personal Data Protection Act and the Ombudsperson

The Law on Personal Data Protection (No. 2297-VI, June 1, 2010, as amended) is the primary data-protection statute regulating how recordings containing personal data are processed in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights (the Ombudsperson) serves as Ukraine's Data Protection Authority. The Ombudsperson is empowered to:

• Receive and investigate complaints about violations of personal data protection requirements
• Conduct scheduled compliance inspections (approximately 25-26 per quarter across public and private sectors)
• Issue binding orders requiring cessation of unlawful processing or deletion of improperly collected data
• Refer criminal violations to prosecutors

Current Enforcement Posture

The Ombudsperson's enforcement activity in data-protection matters is limited while the reform under Draft Law No. 8153 is pending. The current approach is corrective rather than punitive: the Ombudsperson issues orders and recommendations before escalating to formal sanctions. This posture is expected to shift when the new law is enacted and the proposed National Commission for Personal Data Protection and Access to Public Information is established as the dedicated DPA.

Administrative Penalties Under Current Law

Under Article 188-39 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, violations of the Law on Personal Data Protection carry:

• Individuals: fines of UAH 1,700 to 34,000 (approximately USD 40 to 800 at 2025 exchange rates)
• Repeat violations: doubled penalty

These administrative penalties are substantially lower than the criminal penalties under Articles 163 and 182. Most enforcement involving recordings proceeds through the criminal rather than administrative channel.

Draft Law No. 8153 and EU Accession

Ukraine's data-protection framework is undergoing its most significant reform since 2010, driven by the country's EU candidacy.

EU Candidate Status and Accession Timeline

Ukraine received European Union candidate status on June 23, 2022. Accession negotiations formally opened on June 25, 2024. Progress has been substantial:

• November 2024: Ukraine completed bilateral screening of Cluster 1 (fundamentals, rule of law)
• March 2025: Cluster 2 (Internal Market) screening completed
• April 2025: Cluster 6 (External Relations) screening completed
• June 2025: Hungary blocked formal opening of additional cluster negotiations (ongoing)

The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, which entered into force in September 2017, requires data-protection harmonization under Article 15, making enactment of GDPR-aligned legislation a legal obligation independent of the accession timeline.

Draft Law No. 8153 Status

The Verkhovna Rada adopted Draft Law No. 8153 "On the Protection of Personal Data" in first reading on November 20, 2024. A second reading had not occurred as of May 2026. The Council of Europe issued a legal opinion (LEX_2025_2, January 15, 2025) identifying areas for further revision before second reading.

Key provisions of the draft as passed in first reading:

• Mandatory Data Protection Officers for all controllers and processors conducting large-scale personal data processing
• 72-hour breach notification to the new National Commission (DPA) following discovery of a personal data breach
• Data Protection Impact Assessments for high-risk processing activities, including systematic CCTV surveillance of public spaces and large-scale profiling
• Explicit consent standards requiring consent to be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous
• Significant penalties: up to UAH 20 million for natural persons and up to UAH 150 million (or 8% of annual global turnover) for legal entities for serious violations
• Establishment of the National Commission for Personal Data Protection and Access to Public Information as the dedicated regulatory authority, replacing the Ombudsperson in this role

The draft law states explicitly that Ukraine is not a Member State of the EU and is therefore not directly subject to the GDPR, but it is designed to achieve functional equivalence with GDPR standards as an accession requirement.

Implications for Recordings

Draft Law 8153, when enacted, will substantially tighten the consent and documentation requirements for any recording that constitutes personal data processing. Business call recording, CCTV systems processing identifiable footage, and any AI-assisted transcription or analysis of recordings will require documented lawful bases, DPIAs where appropriate, and data subject rights procedures.

Deepfakes, AI-Generated Content, and Disinformation

Ukraine has no dedicated deepfake or AI-specific legislation as of May 2026. However, the legal framework for addressing AI-generated disinformation and non-consensual synthetic media draws on several existing provisions.

Existing Framework for AI-Generated Privacy Violations

Non-consensual deepfake recordings that portray a real individual in a private context without their consent engage the same legal provisions as ordinary recordings:

• Article 182 (unlawful collection and dissemination of personal information) applies to deepfakes that falsely portray identifiable individuals
• Article 307 of the Civil Code (right to consent to recording) covers synthetic media that depicts a real person, on the principle that placing a person's likeness in a fabricated context without consent violates their image rights
• The Law on Information (1992, as amended) and the Law on Media (2022) address disinformation distribution, though without AI-specific provisions

Wartime Deepfake Context

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has produced documented large-scale use of deepfake disinformation, including a November 2023 deepfake video purporting to show Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Valerii Zaluzhnyi calling for a military coup. The Center for Countering Disinformation (established May 2021 within the National Security and Defense Council) monitors and identifies AI-generated disinformation but has no independent enforcement authority; it refers cases to prosecutors for potential charges under the Criminal Code.

EU Alignment Trajectory

Ukraine's accession process requires progressive harmonization with the EU AI Act, which includes mandatory disclosure labeling for AI-generated or -manipulated content (Article 50 of the EU AI Act). Ukraine's Ministry of Digitalisation and the Dnistrianskyi Center (a domestic research body) have published analysis of Draft Law 8153 in the context of AI regulation, but no standalone AI Act equivalent had been introduced to the Verkhovna Rada as of May 2026.

Recording as Evidence in Ukrainian Courts

Ukrainian courts apply specific standards for the admissibility of recorded evidence that practitioners must understand before relying on covert recordings in litigation.

Admissibility Requirements Under the CPC

Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, evidence is admissible only if obtained through procedures the Code prescribes. A recording obtained through unlawful THIRD-PARTY interception in violation of Article 163, or by law enforcement without required CPC authorization, is subject to exclusion as illegally obtained evidence (CPC Article 86-88); a participant's own recording of their conversation is not excluded on that basis, though courts still test its authenticity, chain of custody, and relevance below.

Courts evaluate recordings on four factors:

1. Legality: Was the recording obtained in compliance with consent requirements or the CPC's covert-action authorization framework?
2. Authenticity: Is the recording an unaltered original? Courts may order forensic examination if a party alleges falsification through editing or montage.
3. Chain of custody: Who possessed the recording, on what devices, and what access controls existed?
4. Relevance: Does the recording directly or indirectly establish facts in the proceedings?

A party challenging an audio recording may allege falsification, which triggers a mandatory forensic examination requirement under CPC Article 242.

Participant Recordings Are the Rule, Not an Exception

Ukrainian courts, including the Supreme Court itself, treat a participant's own recording as ordinary admissible evidence under the Criminal Procedure Code rather than as leniency granted despite an underlying crime. The Supreme Court first held this in case No. 758/1780/17 (December 2, 2022, Third Chamber, Criminal Cassation Court): a phone recording a person makes themselves, on a dictaphone or a phone's own recording function, does not amount to "removal of information from transport telecommunication networks" under the covert-investigative-action (NSRD) rules. The Second Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court applied the same holding on May 21, 2026 in case No. 450/1952/18, an unrelated robbery prosecution under Article 187, rejecting a defense argument that a victim's automatic phone recordings of his calls with the accused were inadmissible for want of prior judicial authorization. Neither ruling interprets or mentions Article 163 of the Criminal Code; they resolve a Criminal Procedure Code admissibility question, not the separate substantive question of whether recording your own conversation is itself a crime, which rests on Article 163's own text and commentary (discussed above). Civil courts have applied similar reasoning in disputes documenting threats, fraud, or contract breaches.

Cross-Border Recording: US-Ukraine

When a recording involves parties in both Ukraine and the United States, both jurisdictions' laws potentially apply.

Which Country's Rule Actually Controls

Ukrainian law does not contain a choice-of-law provision specifically addressing cross-border call recording. Now that Ukraine is correctly understood as one-party for a participant's own recording, there is no direct conflict with the US federal default (also one-party, 18 U.S.C. § 2511). The practical constraint on the Ukrainian side is the Law on Personal Data Protection's transparency and lawful-basis requirement for processing the call's personal data (see Business Call Recording, above), not a wiretap-style consent rule. The strictest-applicable-law principle still matters where a US participant is physically located in one of the roughly dozen US ALL-party-consent states (for example California, Florida, or Illinois): that state's stricter rule controls for that participant regardless of Ukraine's rule.

In practical terms: a US company recording a call with a Ukrainian customer or employee should still announce the recording and its purpose at the outset, both to satisfy Ukraine's Personal Data Protection transparency duty and as the safest default if any participant is in a US all-party-consent state.

US-Ukraine Legal Cooperation

The United States and Ukraine have a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) that facilitates evidence sharing in criminal proceedings. Recordings obtained by US law enforcement under US federal wiretap law (18 U.S.C. § 2518) may be submitted through MLAT procedures in Ukrainian criminal proceedings, and vice versa. Ukrainian recordings must satisfy Ukrainian admissibility standards to be usable in US proceedings.

Practical Guidance for Cross-Border Calls

Penalties Reference

Ukraine Compared to Neighboring Countries

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording laws in Ukraine. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The information covers Ukrainian law under the Criminal Code of Ukraine (No. 2341-III, 2001, as amended), the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine (No. 4651-VI, 2012), the Law on Personal Data Protection (No. 2297-VI, 2010), and the Constitution of Ukraine, as verified on May 15, 2026. Wartime restrictions under martial law, in effect since February 24, 2022, are described as of the same date. Laws change, and the martial law framework in particular may be modified as the conflict situation evolves. Readers should consult a lawyer licensed in Ukraine or in the relevant jurisdiction for advice on their specific situation.

Authorities Cited

1. Constitution of Ukraine, Articles 31 and 32. https://rm.coe.int/constitution-of-ukraine/168071f58b
2. Criminal Code of Ukraine (No. 2341-III, April 5, 2001, as amended), Articles 114-2, 162, 163, 182. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/2341-14
3. Civil Code of Ukraine, Article 307. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/435-15
4. Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine (No. 4651-VI, 2012), Articles 247-248, 258-266. https://rm.coe.int/16802f6016
5. Law of Ukraine on Personal Data Protection (No. 2297-VI, June 1, 2010, as amended). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/2297-17
6. Law of Ukraine on Electronic Communications (No. 1089-IX, 2021, in force January 1, 2022). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/1089-20
7. Draft Law No. 8153 "On the Protection of Personal Data," adopted in first reading November 20, 2024. https://gls-law.company/en/new-personal-data-law-in-ukraine-what-will-change-for-businesses-in-2025/
8. Council of Europe, Legal Opinion LEX_2025_2 on Draft Law No. 8153 (January 15, 2025). https://rm.coe.int/opinion-on-the-draft-law-of-ukraine-on-personal-data-protection-/1680ad38c2
9. ECHR, Yakymchuk and Others v. Ukraine, February 13, 2025 (violation of Article 8 ECHR through unlawful covert surveillance). https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/02/echr-rules-ukraine-violated-privacy-rights-through-covert-investigation/
10. Article 114-2 analysis and penalty guide. https://prikhodko.com.ua/en/media/media/article/what-is-the-risk-of-filming-and-publishing-the-positions-of-the-armed-forces-article-114-2-of-the-criminal-code-of-ukraine-2/
11. Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsperson / DPA). https://ombudsman.gov.ua/en
12. ICLG, Data Protection Laws and Regulations Report 2025-2026: Ukraine. https://iclg.com/practice-areas/data-protection-laws-and-regulations/ukraine
13. US State Department, 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Ukraine. https://www.state.gov/reports/2024-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/ukraine
14. European Commission, Ukraine Accession Screening Completion (November 2024). https://enlargement.ec.europa.eu/news/ukraine-successfully-completes-its-screening-process-2025-09-30_en
15. Criminal Code of Ukraine: Safety of Journalists Provisions (CEDEM). https://cedem.org.ua/en/library/criminal-code-of-ukraine-safety-of-journalists/
16. Dashcam rules during martial law. https://visitukraine.today/blog/4308/are-dvrs-allowed-in-ukraine-during-martial-law
17. Martial law extensions timeline. https://visitukraine.today/blog/7181/martial-law-and-general-mobilization-in-ukraine-extended-until-2026-what-is-known
18. Ukraine E-Communications Law privacy implications (SK Law). https://sk.ua/ukraine-privacy-implications-of-the-e-communications-law/
19. ILO/NATLEX, Ukraine Law on Personal Data Protection No. 2297-VI (English text). https://natlex.ilo.org/dyn/natlex2/natlex2/files/download/87898/UKR-87898%20(EN).pdf
20. Criminal liability for unauthorized dissemination during martial law (Yurisvest). https://yurisvest.com/en/cases/kryminalna-vidpovidalnist-za-nesanktsionovane-poshyrennia-informatsii-foto-video-pid-chas-voiennoho-stanu/
21. Supreme Court of Ukraine, Second Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, Case No. 450/1952/18 (May 21, 2026, robbery prosecution under Art. 187): a participant's own phone recording is not "removal of information from transport telecommunication networks" and requires no prior judicial authorization under the Criminal Procedure Code's covert-investigative-action rules; the ruling does not address Criminal Code Article 163. https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/136882517
22. Supreme Court of Ukraine, Third Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court, Case No. 758/1780/17 (December 2, 2022): the earlier ruling establishing that a participant's own recording is not covert interception requiring prior judicial authorization. https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/107805025