The plenary sitting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 12 May 2026 unfolded in two political dimensions at once: as a day of international solidarity with Ukraine and as a day of parliamentary decisions, some of which stopped just short of the required support.
Key focus of the day
President of Spain’s Congress of Deputies Francina Armengol addressed the Verkhovna Rada from the parliamentary rostrum. The chamber then moved to votes that revealed the real state of its political capacity.
The plenary sitting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 12 May 2026 unfolded in two political dimensions. On the one hand, Parliament worked through its domestic agenda — property valuation, basic social assistance, bankruptcy procedures for small businesses, as well as staffing and organisational matters. On the other hand, the session hall became a space of visible international support for Ukraine: President of the Congress of Deputies of the Kingdom of Spain Francina Armengol addressed Ukrainian MPs during her first-ever visit to Ukraine by the head of the lower chamber of the Spanish Parliament.
Her speech in the Verkhovna Rada was more than a diplomatic episode. At a time when Ukraine continues to resist Russia’s aggression, the presence of the leader of one of Europe’s key parliaments in the session hall reaffirmed that the Ukrainian Parliament remains an important platform for international solidarity, security coordination and the defence of international law.
On 12 May, the Verkhovna Rada worked in two dimensions at once: as the national legislature and as the parliament of a European country at war, addressed from its rostrum by the President of Spain’s Congress of Deputies.
During her meeting with Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada Ruslan Stefanchuk, the sides discussed strengthening Ukraine’s air defence, developing joint production with Ukraine, European integration, sanctions pressure on Russia, the establishment of a Special Tribunal for the crime of aggression, and the return of Ukrainian children deported or forcibly transferred by Russia. Particular attention was also paid to the recognition of the 1944 deportation of the Crimean Tatar people as an act of genocide.
Against this backdrop, the Verkhovna Rada moved to its plenary agenda. And while the international part of the day demonstrated unity around Ukraine, the internal parliamentary part showed something else: the Rada is functioning, but many important decisions are moving through an extremely narrow corridor of political support — or fail to move through it at all.
the plenary day of 12 May in six key points
International signal
Francina Armengol addressed the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in the session hall.
Draft Law No. 13435 — Property Valuation
229 votes: the draft law was sent for a repeated first reading.
Draft Law No. 15094 — Basic Social Assistance
225 votes: the bill was not included in the agenda — it fell short by one vote.
Draft Law No. 15024 — Simplified Bankruptcy Procedures for Small Businesses
192 votes: Parliament did not include the draft law in the agenda.
Parliamentary oversight
168 votes: MPs supported the proposal to invite National Bank Governor Andriy Pyshnyy to Parliament.
Resolutions No. 15201 and No. 15206 — staffing and organisational decisions
209 and 204 votes: neither decision secured the required support.
The international signal of the day: Spain speaks to Ukraine from the parliamentary rostrum
Francina Armengol’s visit was significant not only because of its historic nature. In recent years, Spain has consistently supported Ukraine politically, humanitarianly, financially and in the defence sphere. During the meeting, Ruslan Stefanchuk specifically noted the decisions adopted by Spain’s Congress of Deputies in support of Ukraine since 2022, describing them as a signal of unity, resolve and commitment to the protection of freedom and international law.
The presence of the President of Spain’s Congress of Deputies in the Verkhovna Rada carries another important meaning. In wartime, Ukraine is building not only governmental and presidential channels of international cooperation, but also systemic parliamentary diplomacy. It is parliaments of partner states that adopt resolutions, approve budgetary decisions, shape sanctions frameworks, support confiscation mechanisms, ratify international agreements and build political consensus within their own societies.
That is why Francina Armengol’s address in Kyiv was not merely ceremonial. It confirmed that the Ukrainian Parliament is perceived as a full-fledged political centre of a state fighting not only for its territorial integrity, but also for European security as a shared value.
The property valuation bill: the reform was not rejected, but it will have to be rebuilt
The most substantive legislative item of the plenary day was Draft Law No. 13435 “On Property Valuation”. At first, the Verkhovna Rada did not support its adoption as a basis with further revision under Part 1 of Article 116 of the Rules of Procedure: 186 votes in favour were not enough. Parliament then made a different decision — with 229 votes, it sent the draft law for a repeated first reading.
This is an important point. The bill was not removed from the agenda as politically exhausted. On the contrary, the Rada effectively recognised the need to continue working on it, while signalling that the current text had not gathered sufficient support.
In a time of reconstruction, property valuation is not a narrow professional matter. It is the foundation for compensation, investment, privatisation processes and trust in the state.
In Ukraine, the issue of property valuation has long ceased to be a narrow technical subject. In the context of war and reconstruction, it is directly linked to compensation for damages, assessment of destroyed assets, preparation of investment projects, transparency of privatisation processes and the confidence of international partners in Ukrainian procedures.
That is why the decision to send the bill for a repeated first reading has a dual meaning. On the one hand, Parliament did not block the reform. On the other hand, it showed that even systemic bills crucial for the post-war economy require complex political coordination.
Basic social assistance: one vote short of opening the debate
The fragility of parliamentary support became even clearer during the vote on including Draft Law No. 15094 “On Basic Social Assistance” in the agenda. The decision was supported by 225 MPs — literally one vote short of allowing Parliament to open consideration of a socially sensitive initiative.
225 votes are not merely a statistic. They show how parliamentary capacity can directly affect the speed of social decisions in wartime.
This result became one of the most telling moments of the day. In a country at war, social support cannot be treated as a secondary matter. The growing number of citizens in need of targeted assistance, internal displacement, loss of income, pressure on families of service members and affected communities all create demand for a clearer and more coherent model of state support.
Yet on 12 May, the issue was not even added to the plenary agenda. Not because Parliament overwhelmingly rejected it, but because there was not enough organisational discipline to secure a positive procedural vote.
Small business and bankruptcy: the reform did not even reach the agenda
Another economically sensitive issue was Draft Law No. 15024, which proposes amendments to the Bankruptcy Procedures Code of Ukraine and other legislative acts concerning simplified insolvency proceedings for micro- and small enterprises. The bill also provides for specific bankruptcy procedures for state-owned enterprises and companies for which privatisation decisions have been adopted.
The proposal to include this draft law in the agenda received 192 votes. The decision was not adopted.
For small businesses, this topic has not only legal but also practical importance. A wartime economy creates situations in which entrepreneurs are unable to meet obligations because of asset losses, relocation, destruction of production facilities or falling demand. More transparent and less burdensome insolvency procedures could serve not as a mechanism of liquidation, but as a tool for a civilised restart.
The fact that the draft law failed to reach the agenda underlined the broader logic of the plenary day: economic decisions important for national recovery do not always pass through Parliament even at the starting procedural stage.
Parliamentary oversight: only the invitation of the National Bank Governor was supported
A separate block of the plenary sitting concerned proposals to invite several senior officials to address the Verkhovna Rada. MPs voted on whether to invite the Minister of Defence of Ukraine, the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the Head of the State Financial Monitoring Service of Ukraine and the Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine.
Of these initiatives, only one received the required support — the proposal by MP Dmytro Razumkov to invite National Bank Governor Andriy Pyshnyy to Parliament. It was supported by 168 MPs, and the decision was adopted.
The other proposals did not receive sufficient support: 84 MPs voted to invite the Minister of Defence, 62 supported inviting the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and 122 backed the invitation of the Head of the State Financial Monitoring Service.
Parliamentary oversight works where a situational consensus exists. On 12 May, that consensus emerged only around the invitation of the Governor of the National Bank.
Termination of an MP’s mandate and committee changes: the votes were not there
In the second part of the plenary day, the Verkhovna Rada considered two further politically sensitive matters.
The first was Draft Resolution No. 15201 on the early termination of the powers of MP V.V. Tsabal. Before the final vote, Parliament held two indicative votes, which showed 212 and 221 votes in favour. In the final roll-call vote, however, the resolution received 209 votes, and the decision was not adopted.
The second was an indicative vote on Draft Resolution No. 15206 amending the Verkhovna Rada’s resolution on the election of chairpersons, first deputy chairpersons, deputy chairpersons, secretaries and members of parliamentary committees of the ninth convocation. It received 204 votes, which was also insufficient.
These results show that staffing and organisational decisions in Parliament are no longer merely technical. They require separate political coordination, and even where preliminary signals of support exist, the final result may still differ.
A regional perspective: parliamentary arithmetic has consequences for communities
Ruslan Shamrin
Member of the Kryvyi Rih City Council, Member of the Standing Commission of the Kryvyi Rih City Council on the Implementation of the City Development Strategy and Investments
“For local communities, it matters whether Parliament is able to advance decisions in time — decisions that directly affect reconstruction, investment, social support and the work of small businesses. The property valuation bill is about fair assessment of assets and losses. Basic social assistance is about people facing difficult life circumstances. Simplified bankruptcy procedures are about the survival of small entrepreneurship. When such issues stall because one or several votes are missing, this is felt not only in the Verkhovna Rada, but also in communities.”
This assessment is especially relevant for industrial regions, war-affected territories and frontline communities. There, legislative delays have a very practical dimension: they influence the speed of property recovery, the ability of local businesses to restart operations, and the chances of socially vulnerable residents to receive support through a clearer and more accessible system.
The plenary sitting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 12 May 2026 will remain notable for two reasons.
The first is international. President of Spain’s Congress of Deputies Francina Armengol addressed the Ukrainian Parliament in the session hall. It was an important gesture of support for Ukraine, a confirmation of strong interparliamentary ties and a reminder that Ukraine’s struggle for freedom remains part of the broader European political agenda.
The second is domestic. The Rada sent the property valuation reform for a repeated first reading and supported the invitation of the National Bank Governor. At the same time, it failed to gather the votes needed to include the basic social assistance bill in the agenda, did not open the plenary path for reforming bankruptcy procedures for small businesses, and did not adopt staffing and organisational decisions.
This day should be read not as a dry chronicle of votes, but as a diagnosis of a wartime parliament. Externally, Ukraine is receiving increasingly visible signals of support. Internally, the key question remains: can the Verkhovna Rada turn situational coalitions of votes into a stable capacity to adopt decisions on which reconstruction, social resilience and public trust depend?
