Anka Feldhusen, Business Ombudsman of Ukraine

 In January 2026, the Cabinet of Ministers appointed Anka Feldhusen as Head of the Business Ombudsman Council of Ukraine. Her selection as the chief mediator between the government and the private sector was no coincidence: Feldhusen brings many years of professional experience in Ukraine, including her tenure as Germany’s Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Kyiv. This background enables her to assess the country’s challenges with clarity and without illusions.

In an conversation with Ukrinform, Feldhusen shared her first impressions of the role, reflected on how her prior engagement with Ukrainian authorities informs her work, and outlined her priorities as Business Ombudsman. Notably, her title will continue to be used without a feminine form. “It’s simpler this way—otherwise, a lot of documents would have to be changed,” she noted with a lighthearted reference to local bureaucracy.

Q: You are the fourth Business Ombudsman in Ukraine since the Council’s establishment. Did your predecessor, Roman Waschuk, leave you any guidance or highlight priority areas?

A: Yes, absolutely. Roman and I completed the handover back in December. Some of his recommendations were fundamental, others more practical. Above all, he emphasized the unique nature of our institution. The Business Ombudsman Council is genuinely independent—equidistant from both business and government.

Sometimes we are perceived as just another business association tasked with defending business interests. But we are not advocates—we are an independent institution. This distinction was a key argument in favor of my appointment, as was the independence of my role as head of the Council. That is the fundamental point.

As for practical matters, Roman handed over a team that is functioning extremely well. I have seen this firsthand over the past two months. We receive complaints, my colleagues process them, and I review and approve the outcomes. My predecessor can genuinely take pride in what was achieved during his tenure. These include tangible improvements in the tax sphere—most notably, enhancements to the risk assessment monitoring system and a reduction in the blocking of tax invoices—as well as a pilot initiative on tax mediation and updated pricing rules in the construction materials market.

He also highlighted several areas that may be of particular interest to me. First, the Business Ombudsman Council participates in nomination committees for supervisory boards. While we do not have voting rights, we observe the process and provide recommendations. Second, I will be involved in the work of disciplinary commissions within newly established institutions, such as the Bureau of Economic Security. This is a new area for me, and one I am keen to explore. Our institutional independence should allow for a deeper and more objective engagement with these issues.

Q: Which of the achievements of your predecessors would you consider most beneficial for entrepreneurs? What priorities have you set for yourself in this role?

A: One of the most impactful achievements has been our systemic recommendations on unblocking tax invoices within the SMKOR system (the risk criteria monitoring framework — ed.). Let me illustrate with figures: the share of complaints related to SMKOR fell from nearly 60% in the first quarter of 2024 to 31% in the fourth quarter of last year. This is not a one-off decline, but a clear and sustained trend.

As Roman described our approach to working with tax authorities, it should follow a consult first principle—communication precedes enforcement. I consider this approach essential and intend to continue building cooperation along these lines. Encouragingly, the current leadership of the State Tax Service is open to dialogue. From our side, we consistently promote the idea that business should be treated as a partner, not as a presumptive violator.

Another area of focus for me is the work of customs authorities. A new head of the State Customs Service has recently been appointed, and we are preparing for an initial meeting. While complaints regarding customs are relatively limited, there are still important issues to address—particularly transparency and operational challenges at the Polish-Ukrainian border, including the potential expansion of joint control mechanisms, following the pilot model implemented with Romania.

Another priority for me is to continue active cooperation with the Bureau of Economic Security. A new head has been in place there for about six months and, together with the tax authorities, has already launched efforts to bring the electronics market out of the shadow. I see this as only the first step. Attention will likely expand to other sectors where, as is well known in Ukraine, there is still significant shadow activity. We stand ready to support this work.

VAT refunds have also returned to the agenda, and it is important to understand why.

Q: Have you already met personally with the Acting Head of the State Tax Service, Lesia Karnaukh?

A: Not yet in a dedicated format—we have met at conferences and other events. What I found particularly noteworthy is her style of communication with business. It is a genuine dialogue, rather than the one-sided monologue we often saw before, with clear and transparent messaging about what the State Tax Service can and cannot do.

My key takeaway from these first two months is that businesses need clarity and time to adapt. If the rules are clear, businesses will adjust—but they must also be confident that those rules will not change unexpectedly. In other words, communication and predictability are critical.

Q: Over these two months, have you formed a clearer picture of the real state of business in Ukraine? Which challenges are most pressing in 2026?

A: Even before returning from Germany, I had been closely observing how Ukraine has been functioning during the full-scale Russian invasion, so I already had a fairly solid understanding of the situation. That said, like many foreigners, I remain deeply impressed by how Ukrainians—and businesses in particular—have adapted.

Of course, there are realities we cannot change: shelling, destruction, and the loss of life. It is horrific, and it must continue to be spoken about openly. At the same time, I am positively surprised that in Germany there remains a high level of attention to the war, even now in its fifth year. I consider it important to contribute to ensuring that this attention does not fade.

Ukrainian businesses have demonstrated remarkable adaptability and creativity. They are taking practical measures—protecting infrastructure, investing in generators, and ensuring operational continuity. When I returned to Kyiv in December, the constant hum of generators was striking; it was something that simply was not there during my first winter at the German Embassy.

I have also begun visiting the regions—twice in Kyiv region, as well as trips to Bila Tserkva, Zhytomyr, and Vinnytsia—where I met with local entrepreneurs. What stood out to me was the level of care businesses show for their employees: psychological support, team-building initiatives, and training programs for women and older workers. I even heard about a large international company that has trained thousands of women as truck drivers.

In short, Ukrainian businesses are not only striving to survive—they are actively working to develop and grow despite the circumstances.

Q: Our business community, having the opportunity to compare operating conditions in Ukraine and abroad, often criticizes the domestic system. In your view, have sufficient conditions been created for conducting transparent, “white” business in Ukraine?

A: Ukraine, in my assessment, has made considerable progress, especially  through digitalization. Today, permits and licenses can be obtained through Diia, which is a major improvement. At the same time, a large share of the complaints we receive relates to tax administration and the functioning of the law enforcement system. These are areas that clearly require further reform.

Improving Ukraine’s attractiveness as an investment destination is essential. The country’s reconstruction will require substantial foreign capital, and public funding alone will not be sufficient. Private investment must also be mobilized—and that is only possible if Ukraine’s reputation continues to improve. I have been following Ukraine since 1994 and can attest to the considerable progress made. However, recurring corruption scandals, including those seen last year, continue to weigh on the overall investment climate.

Q: Let us review the performance of the Business Ombudsman Council in 2025: how many complaints did you receive, how many were resolved, and which issues dominate?

A: I already have data not only for 2025 but also for the first quarter of 2026, and the trends are largely consistent. Tax-related issues remain the leading category, accounting for 52% of complaints last year and 50% so far this year.

Complaints regarding law enforcement actions are significantly lower—16% in 2025 and 13% in early 2026. Issues related to state regulators account for 8% in both periods, while customs-related complaints stand at 7%. Complaints concerning local authorities have remained stable at 5%.

The overall distribution between domestic and foreign complainants has also remained largely unchanged: Ukrainian companies accounted for 87% of complaints last year and 89% this year. Notably, the majority of complaints come from small and medium-sized enterprises—67% in 2025 and 75% in the first quarter of 2026.

Q: According to your data, when disputes reach the courts, which side tends to prevail—the business or the state?

A: Our statistics indicate that courts, in the overwhelming majority of cases, side with businesses. In particular, tax authorities lose cases very frequently. This serves as one of our key arguments in dialogue with them: it’s in everyone’s interest to save time and resources by settling the matter before it goes to court.

Another area our team is working on is the new Law on Administrative Procedure (which entered into force on December 15, 2023). It covers nearly all interactions between businesses and the government, including permits, licensing, property registration, and inspections. We are currently working actively with local communities on establishing commissions to review business complaints under this framework. For example, in Vinnytsia, such a commission reviewed five complaints last year alone. The very existence of these regional mechanisms elevates communication with local authorities to a qualitatively new level.

Q: What prevents entrepreneurs from moving more actively to the “light side,” as the head of the parliamentary tax committee, Danylo Hetmantsev, sometimes puts it? Do they actually benefit more from operating in the shadow economy?

A: I am convinced that most businesses would prefer to operate transparently—if only because it allows them to sleep better. Consider the current wartime conditions: only tax-compliant companies paying official wages can secure mobilization exemptions for their employees. In practice, this is the only way businesses can retain qualified staff.

At the same time, there is the issue of “fragmentation” (splitting businesses), which remains a complex and insufficiently clarified topic. The communication around it is, in my view, still too vague. Who is eligible to remain under the simplified taxation system, and who must transition to the general regime? These rules need to be explained much more clearly so that businesses are not discouraged or uncertain.

Q: What is the position of the Business Ombudsman Council on introducing VAT for small and micro-enterprises?

A: This is an important issue and one of the IMF’s structural benchmarks. We hope a decision will be made to raise the annual revenue threshold for VAT liability to UAH 4 million. This was one of our recommendations submitted to the Ministry of Finance earlier this year. Such a threshold would align with European standards, as revenues at this level typically correspond to self-employment or very small-scale businesses—hairdressers, cafés, small retailers, and similar enterprises. However, this reform must be accompanied by clear public communication to avoid unnecessary concerns. At present, such communication remains insufficient.

At the same time, we all encounter situations—and I am no exception—where, for example, a restaurant asks customers to pay using two separate receipts. There are also jewelry shops or branded clothing stores formally registered as individual entrepreneurs, while in reality operating as a single business. Frankly, this is difficult to justify, and it is something that needs to be addressed.

The main argument advanced by proponents of the simplified taxation system is the complexity of administering value-added tax (VAT). I consider this a valid concern. Accordingly, both the government and the State Tax Service should focus on simplifying the relevant procedures. At the same time, Ukraine has a clear advantage—its high level of digitalization. If Germany succeeded in moving to digital tax reporting, Ukraine is fully capable of following suit. The first year may be challenging, but the system would become significantly more efficient thereafter. A well-designed communication campaign by the tax authorities will also be essential.

Another important consideration is fiscal distribution: personal income tax (PIT) and the single tax are allocated to local budgets, whereas VAT revenues flow into the central budget. It is therefore important to consider this carefully, so as not to undermine local incentives to attract new businesses.

Equally important is the need for a transition period when introducing regulatory changes. I recently spoke with a complainant who imports batteries: licensing requirements were changed abruptly, and he had no time to adapt before his goods were held at customs. We will assist him, of course—but such situations could be avoided if new rules were introduced with a reasonable adjustment period. The same logic applies to individual entrepreneurs, who also need time to adapt.

Q: You noted that the majority of complaints to the Council come from small and medium-sized enterprises. How do you explain this?

A: Quite simply: our services are free of charge. We assist complainants at no cost, provided their cases meet our criteria. We do not take on every case—after conducting due diligence, we proceed with just over half of the complaints we receive. Small and medium-sized businesses typically have fewer resources to hire legal counsel and less capacity to navigate complex complaint procedures than large corporations. It is therefore natural that they turn to us.

Q: In Ukraine, business is often treated by default as a potential violator rather than a partner of the government. That is precisely why an advisory body like yours was created—to safeguard the legal rights and interests of the business community. Is there anything comparable to your role in Germany?

A: No, there is no direct equivalent. While the term “ombudsman” exists in many countries, its meaning varies considerably. In Germany, for example, the German Ombudsman Association is a professional body that brings together lawyers specializing in compliance and due diligence.

Institutions similar to our Council can be found in several countries in Central Europe and Central Asia—such as Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. This is not coincidental: many of them were established after the collapse of the Soviet Union by countries seeking to align with OECD standards—internationally recognized principles for transparency, effective governance, anti-corruption, and responsible business conduct.

In Ukraine, there is a clear demand for an impartial mechanism to address cases where businesses face unfair treatment by state authorities. This is precisely where we can add value.

Q: More broadly, is a situation of direct confrontation between businesses and the government—for example, with tax authorities—possible in Germany?

A: This highlights a fundamental difference between Ukraine and Germany, which I often noted during my time as ambassador: the level of institutional trust. In Germany, particularly in Berlin, people do complain about local authorities. However, more than 90% of citizens still trust them. In Ukraine, by contrast, trust remains low. Rebuilding it will require sustained, incremental efforts and the active involvement of all state institutions.

That is why I was particularly encouraged by the communication style of the head of the State Tax Service, who spent two hours engaging directly with businesses in an open dialogue. I had not observed this level of engagement before. Such steps are essential for rebuilding trust—but it will be a long-term process, likely spanning generations.

Q: Have you already received complaints during your tenure? If so, on what issues?

A: In the first quarter of 2026, we received 226 complaints, of which 120 have already been closed. My colleagues note that the number of complaints is increasing. The team even asks me: “Anka, is that good or bad? Should we want this number to grow or decline?”

There is a view that the increase may be linked to my recent appointment. There is indeed a high level of interest—I observe this both in Kyiv and in the regions. And, frankly, I see this as an advantage. The government has known me for a long time; I personally know most members of the Cabinet and can access ministers relatively quickly. I hope this will prove helpful in resolving issues more efficiently.

At the same time, I tend to see the growth in complaints as a positive signal. A higher volume allows us to identify systemic problems and address them more effectively—just as we did with SMKOR. For instance, I have already discussed with the Prosecutor General the issue of long-running criminal proceedings involving businesses. According to the data he provided, out of 23,000 such cases, 9,000 have been closed. This is progress, but a significant number still remain, and this is an area that requires continued attention.

Q: Which regions generate the highest number of complaints?

A: Kyiv leads by a considerable margin. In 2025, 30% of complaints came from businesses in the capital, with an additional 10% from Kyiv region. This is followed by Lviv, Odesa, and Dnipro—Ukraine’s major business hubs. At the same time, awareness of our work remains lower in the regions. As representatives of regional administrations in Vinnytsia and Zhytomyr jokingly remarked, if businesses are not familiar with us, perhaps everything is running smoothly. I tend to respond that it is better for businesses to know about the Council as an additional mechanism for protecting their rights. That is why another key motivation behind my travels across Ukraine is to raise awareness of our work among as broad a regional audience as possible outside the capital.

Q: Do you believe you have sufficient authority to meaningfully influence improvements in Ukraine’s business environment? What tools or leverage are still lacking?

A: As I mentioned earlier, our primary advantage is access to decision-makers—our “soft power,” which we use on a daily basis. And it is effective. We are trusted by both the authorities and the business community, and our systemic recommendations—grounded in real cases—are being taken seriously.

Another important instrument is what is often referred to as “name and shame”—public visibility through communication. During my time as ambassador, I saw how effective this can be. At times, even a single tweet can make a difference. For example, even a handful of G7 statements on decentralization helped maintain progress in certain areas. That said, such tools must be applied with caution and responsibility.

Ukraine faces an extraordinary number of challenges today, yet the progress already achieved is remarkable. There will always be sectors where dissatisfaction persists. However, European integration will ultimately expand the framework for protecting businesses. While the initial stages may be complex, the long-term outcome is clear: a larger market and integration into a broader economic space based on cooperation and mutual support.

Yuliia Abakumova led this conversation. Kyiv

Photo: Yuliia Ovsiannikova / Ukrinform