EU Accession Exam: How the Reform of the ESB, SBI, and National Police Affects Ukraine's Negotiations

Ukraine has officially begun the most responsible stage of integration — negotiations on Cluster 1 "Fundamentals." This block is unique because it is opened first and closed last; no other economic or sectoral chapter can be successfully completed until progress is made within the first cluster. Within the negotiations on Cluster 1, one of the central directions is Section 24 "Justice, Freedom, and Security."

It is not only about the formal fulfillment of the technical criteria of European integration but about changing approaches to the functioning of the justice system and law enforcement agencies. Brussels no longer evaluates Ukraine solely by the number of laws passed or institutional "signboards" created. Within the screening, the key indicator becomes the track record — actual effectiveness of law enforcement, real judicial and investigative practice, the level of institutional capacity, and the absence of systemic abuses.

In this context, the reform of the Economic Security Bureau (ESB), the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), and the National Police is viewed by European partners as the main marker of the state's ability to ensure the rule of law and guarantee the security of the future external borders of the European Union.

Reform of the "Big Three"

The EU assesses Ukraine's level of preparedness in the field of justice and security as showing "some progress," particularly in the gradual implementation of the Civil Service Organization Action Plan, as well as in the adoption and initial implementation of the law on reforming the Agency for the Recovery and Management of Assets.

Economic Security Bureau

Ukraine has already taken a step forward; after some delay, the director of the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine was appointed. However, the EU demands further strengthening of its analytical capacity and transformation into a single body for investigating economic crimes, except those under the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU).

International partners have set requirements embedded within IMF and Ukraine Facility funding, which are directly integrated into Section 24. The new legislation on the SEB reboot provides for the formation of a competitive commission with a predominant vote of international experts to select the Director.

Also foreseen is a full re-certification of all Bureau employees and a change in the investigation philosophy: a shift from procedural coercion to criminal analysis based on the Intelligence-led policing model (management of analytical information).

The EU requires the ESB to be fully integrated with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Any investigation concerning the financial interests of the EU, such as misuse of grants or aid, must be conducted according to transparency standards.

Integration with OLAF and Protection of EU Financial Interests — this is one of the requirements of Section 32 (Financial Control) and Section 24.

Ukraine has already authorized the State Audit Service to perform the functions of the Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS), which creates a network for interaction with OLAF.

The ESB is part of this national system (AFCOS Network) and is involved in developing legislation on liability for illegal actions with EU funds.

European partners emphasize the need to consolidate economic crime investigations into a single body (ESB) to eliminate duplication of functions by other structures such as the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) or the National Police and to stop artificial pressure on entrepreneurs.

State Bureau of Investigation

European partners have set a condition — the adoption of a new law on the reform of the SBI modeled after the ESB. This involves involving independent international experts in competitive commissions and vetting current employees for integrity.

The SBI, which investigates crimes of senior officials, judges, and law enforcement officers, causes concern in Brussels due to the excessive concentration of high-profile cases and potential political influence on leadership. The criteria of Section 24 require the implementation of transparent and meritocratic procedures for selecting leadership positions both in the central office and regional departments.

European experts stress the necessity of a clear delineation of jurisdiction between the SBI and NABU to avoid artificial redistribution of cases. Additionally, EU reports note the need to strengthen internal control of the SBI to prevent leaks of official information in high-profile criminal proceedings.

National Police: Demilitarization, Decentralization, and Service Approach

The National Police of Ukraine is the largest law enforcement agency in terms of personnel, directly interacting with the population. Despite the success of the initial reform of the patrol police, the criminal block and investigative bodies at the local level partially follow old Soviet approaches.

Measures of the "Comprehensive Strategic Plan for Reforming Law Enforcement Agencies" include:

• Institute of Offenses: The EU insists on adopting a new version of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which will relieve investigations and unify the responsibility system according to European standards (deadline — Q4 2026).
• Custody Records System: Implementation of electronic recording mechanisms to prevent torture and ill-treatment, which is a condition of Section 24.
• Transparent Local Competitions: By Q4 2025, a law was to be adopted introducing competitive selection for leadership positions in the National Police (including regional departments) based on integrity and professionalism criteria, eliminating purely directive appointments. The introduction of competitive selection for leadership positions in the National Police is envisaged within reforms; however, as of 2026, the final law comprehensively securing this for top leadership has not yet been adopted. The appointment procedure for the Chief of the National Police and his deputies is currently regulated by the existing Law of Ukraine "On the National Police."

Integrated Border Management (IBM): Martial Law Challenges and Schengen Perspective

Before the full-scale invasion, the concept of Integrated Border Management (IBM) was mainly perceived as simplifying customs procedures, digitalization, and combating smuggling. The war changed priorities, forcing the State Border Guard Service (SBGS) and the State Customs Service to perform both defense and law enforcement functions.

The EU demands full synchronization of Ukraine with the requirements of the European Integrated Border Management based on the technical standards of the Frontex Agency. The main criteria include:

• Four-level Access Control Model: From risk analysis in migrants' countries of origin to internal control within the country.
• Joint Control at Checkpoints: Implementation of joint control agreements with Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. This requires unifying procedural actions of Ukrainian and European border guards, significantly reducing corruption risks at customs posts.
• Implementation of Schengen Law: Gradual preparation of technical infrastructure for integration into the second-generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) and the Visa Information System (VIS).

Combating Corruption at Borders and Customs

Customs authorities remain one of the most criticized areas in European Commission reports. Negotiations within Section 24 clearly link trade liberalization and further integration with the elimination of "gray" schemes. Ukraine is obliged to implement:

• Full automation of customs clearance without human factor involvement.
• Rotational principles for personnel of the SBGS and customs to break stable local corruption ties.
• Video recording of customs and border inspections with data transmission to independent analytical centers.

Combating Organized Crime and International Cooperation

For Brussels, control over the circulation of firearms entering Ukraine for defense needs is a matter of national security for the EU itself. Creating an effective unified weapons registry and integrating it with Europol databases, including the iARMS system, is a non-negotiable requirement of Section 24.

Moreover, the war has created massive refugee flows, which international criminal syndicates try to exploit. The EU demands bringing legislation on combating human trafficking fully in line with EU Directives, including new forms of exploitation, strengthening specialized units of the National Police, and improving coordination with Eurojust.

The growing use of cryptocurrencies to finance illegal activities forces Ukraine to adapt the fifth and sixth EU directives (AMLD5/AMLD6) and strengthen the technical capabilities of the Cyber Police.

As of today, a Unified Weapons Registry has been created, constant operational data exchange with Europol has been established, but Ukraine is expected to implement criminal intelligence and eliminate cross-border corruption channels involving law enforcement agencies.

Migration Policy and Asylum Provision in Wartime

This block is one of the most legally sensitive since Ukraine simultaneously acts as a donor of migration flows, with millions of our citizens residing in the EU under Temporary Protection status, and as a state that must ensure international standards for foreigners on its own territory.

Ukrainian legislation on refugees and persons requiring additional protection is partially outdated and does not take into account new European directives (including the Asylum Procedures Directive).

The EU demands simplification and digitalization of the refugee status determination procedure to avoid years of bureaucratic delays and to ensure proper conditions at temporary refugee accommodation centers, even despite the overall security situation in the country.

Also expected is the introduction of effective legal mechanisms for appealing decisions of the State Migration Service (SMS) in court with adherence to the principle of non-refoulement — prohibition of forced return to a country where the person faces danger.

Instead of Conclusions: What Has Been Done and What Remains to Be Done

Completed as of June 2026:

• Launch of the ESB reform and appointment of the head with international participation.
• Reform of ARMA and strengthening of asset legislation.
• Creation of the National Contact Point for firearms.
• Approval of the Rule of Law Roadmap with 529 measures.

To be completed in 2026–2027:

• Law on delineation of powers: clear definition of jurisdiction among all law enforcement agencies.
• Reform of the SBI: adoption and implementation of the law with an international component.
• Launch of transparent competitions for all police leadership positions.
• Full deployment of the electronic case management system (e-case).
• Implementation of the European border management methodology.

The opening of Cluster 1 is only the beginning of changes toward integrity. For the Ukrainian law enforcement system, Section 24 means a shift from evaluation by formal indicators to evaluation by real results — effectiveness of investigations, quality of criminal prosecution, and presence of convictions.

For coverage of Section 23 "Judiciary and Fundamental Rights" within the first cluster, read the material by the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper" "Court Under Brussels' Sight: To Join the EU, Ukraine Must Create a Golden Standard for Judge Selection"

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.