What the fine actually is
- Article 82 of the Code of Administrative Offences, breaching waste-handling requirements: 340 to 1,360 UAH for citizens, 850 to 1,700 UAH for officials and entrepreneurs
- Article 152, breaching rules on the upkeep of populated areas: 340 to 1,360 UAH for citizens
Why that matters to you
In most countries covered in this programme the penalty provision is the main argument. Here it is not, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest.
That these amounts have lost their preventive effect because of their size is a point made in the reform debate itself. Changes are under discussion, but a draft is not law and we do not publish anticipated figures.
The practical conclusion is different: where the fine is small, the leverage is documented recurrence rather than the penalty. A council responds far more to evidence that one specific place is filled again and again than to the threat of a few hundred hryvnia.
The new waste management law
Framework law no. 2320-IX on waste management changed the system and its terminology, and article 82 is being aligned with it.
For an ordinary report this changes little in practice, but it explains why older articles online use different concepts from the current documents.
Where to report it
- The local council or hromada, responsible for the upkeep of the territory
- The municipal guard or the police, if you saw who unloaded it or have a vehicle number
- The State Environmental Inspectorate, for large volumes or hazardous waste
- If anything is burning, smoking or leaking, that is an emergency rather than a report
What a report should contain
- Exact location, ideally with coordinates. On a field track an address will not help
- Two photos: close enough to show the type of waste, wide enough to find the place
- The type: construction waste, furniture, tyres, plant matter, drums, asbestos sheets
- Approximate volume, with something in frame for scale
- The date and, if you know, how long the place has been used
- Visible traces of origin: dockets, labels, company names. There is no need to dig through the waste
What not to do
- Do not clear it before reporting and photographing. Good intentions, and the evidence disappears
- Do not touch drums, sealed sacks or sheets that may contain asbestos
- Do not add your own waste, even a little. One place attracts others within days
- Do not assume someone has already reported it. That is the commonest reason nobody has
Why a public record matters more here than elsewhere
A cleared place becomes a dump again with striking regularity. Such spots repeat for structural reasons: you can drive in, they are not visible at night, and the lawful disposal point is far away.
One report gets one clearance. A dated history with photographs of the same place is something else: it is the argument for a barrier, a camera, a sign or a nearer site.
And precisely because the fines are small, that history works better here than citing the article. On CleanSpot each report keeps its photo, date and coordinates on a public map, and reopening the same place builds that sequence.
It does not replace a report to the local council, and we do not present it that way. It is the evidence the case usually lacks.
Sources
What is the fine for dumping waste in Ukraine?
Under article 82 of the Code of Administrative Offences, 340 to 1,360 UAH for citizens and 850 to 1,700 UAH for officials and entrepreneurs. Under article 152, on upkeep rules, 340 to 1,360 UAH for citizens.
Why are the amounts so low?
That is exactly the criticism: the reform debate itself notes the provision has lost its preventive effect because of the size of the fines. Changes are under discussion, but a draft is not law.
Is reporting worth it if the fine is small?
Yes, but for a different reason. The leverage is documented recurrence of a place rather than the penalty itself. That is what a council responds to.
Can I clear it myself?
Not before reporting and photographing it, or the evidence disappears. And never touch drums or sheets that might contain asbestos.