Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Business

Competition for ARMA head extended to February 9 — too few applications for a competitive selection

The position responsible for recovering stolen assets has a direct impact on reconstruction budgets. But only 13 applications were submitted to the competition — why this matters now.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

January 19, 2026 · 2 min read

Competition for ARMA head extended to February 9 — too few applications for a competitive selection

Deadlines and numbers

The selection commission for the head of the National Agency for the Recovery and Management of Assets (ARMA) has extended the deadline for submitting documents to 9 February. The decision was announced during a live broadcast of the meeting on the Cabinet's website. The deadline had previously been set for 19 January.

According to the commission chair, only 13 candidates applied for the competition.

"Unfortunately, this is not the number we, as a commission, would like to see in order to ensure, in our view, the most competitive selection possible and the election of the best candidate for this position"

— Kateryna Ryzhenko, head of the selection commission

Why this matters

ARMA is responsible for tracing and managing assets seized from corrupt officials and state wrongdoers. The agency's effectiveness directly affects the resource base for restoring infrastructure and implementing anti-corruption measures. A small number of applicants increases the risk that the selection will not ensure sufficient transparency or professionalism — which undermines the trust of partners and investors.

In June the Verkhovna Rada passed a law to reboot ARMA: the selection commission must now shortlist no more than two candidates, and the Cabinet appoints the head for a five-year term within 10 days after receiving the commission's proposal. The previous head, Olena Duma, was relieved of her duties on 30 July 2025 at her own request — since then the agency has been operating without a permanent head.

Why there are few candidates (brief analysis)

Experts point to several likely reasons: strict requirements and thorough vetting, a high level of political risk for the head of such an agency, and close scrutiny from international partners. Competition may also be slowed by legal changes and by waiting to see how the new appointment mechanism will work in practice.

What comes next — practical consequences

The extension of the deadline gives time to attract additional applications and increase the transparency of the competition. At the same time, it is a signal to the Cabinet and donors: they need either to encourage specialist participation or to review communication and selection criteria. If the number of applicants does not rise, the commission risks presenting a narrower pool of candidates to the government — and then the quality of the appointment may suffer.

The explanation is simple: the head of ARMA is not only tasked with managing assets, but is also a test of the state’s ability to effectively recover resources needed for reconstruction and for strengthening public institutions.

Conclusion

Now the ball is in the court of those who set the agenda: the selection commission must make the process more attractive, the Cabinet must be ready to act quickly on the results, and civil society and donors must monitor the process. Whether it will be possible to attract qualified candidates and turn declarations into real indicators of asset recovery is the question that will determine how capable the state property management system will be in the coming years.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026