Legal and Administrative Foundations for Makerspaces in Ukraine

▼This page is part of the Tolocar project by GIZ.This content is open edit, which means we encourage you to edit and reuse all materials while respecting its license.

This article outlines key legal and administrative considerations for makerspaces in Ukraine, including the choice between different legal structures and the possibility of combining them as an organization develops.

This article is part of the “Tolocar: Impulse” initiative, empowering makerspaces in Ukraine to develop their organizations and operations to become more efficient in creating value for their communities. As part of this program workshops on varying organizational topics were conducted for a group of participating makers, implemented by Tolocar’s partners metalab and POLE. One of the topics was how to choose a makerspace’s legal structure – in the following, the key learnings are summarized.

Note: This article summarizes practical experiences and legal considerations discussed during the workshop in July 2026. Ukrainian legislation and tax rules can change, so specific decisions should be checked against current legislation and, where necessary, with a qualified legal or tax professional. The workshop was led by Andriy Andriets, Leading Lawyer at Kairos Group, who shared practical legal guidance and responded to questions from participating makers.

When setting up a makerspace, registering a legal entity can feel like one of the first things that needs to be done. The workshop suggested doing it the other way around: first define how the makerspace should work, and only then decide which legal form supports this model. This means answering some practical questions first: Will the makerspace mainly run educational and community activities, or will it also manufacture and sell products? Will income come from grants, commercial services, membership fees or a combination of these? Will the organization be run by one person or by a team? These decisions have direct implications for which legal structure makes sense.

As legal expert Andrii explained:

“It is very important to first determine your goals, where your funding will come from, what you plan to do and for whom, and only then choose the appropriate legal form.”

The workshop compared three forms commonly relevant to Ukrainian makerspaces: a sole proprietorship (FOP), a limited liability company (TOV) and a non-governmental organization (NGO). Each comes with different possibilities and limitations. A FOP can provide a relatively simple structure for an individual providing commercial services, while a TOV may be more appropriate when several people jointly run commercial activities or enter larger contracts. An NGO, in turn, provides a framework for public-interest activities and grant funding, but its activities and expenditure have to correspond to its statutory purpose.

There is therefore no single legal form that every makerspace should adopt. As Andrii put it, “There is no universal model that satisfies everyone.” The important question is not which structure other makerspaces use, but which one fits your own activities, funding sources, team and risks.

Makerspaces often combine activities that are difficult to fit neatly into one category. The same organization might run grant-funded educational programmes, provide free community activities, manufacture products for companies and offer paid prototyping services. The workshop showed that, as these activities grow, it can make sense to separate them legally rather than trying to conduct everything through one entity.

Metalab provided a concrete example: Its organizational model combines an NGO, a TOV and individual FOPs. As Alina, expert at metalab, explained, “In practice, our legal model consists of an NGO, an LLC and sole proprietors.” The reason is relatively straightforward: “We carry out commercial activities, while at the same time we have public-interest activities.”

This does not mean that every makerspace needs several legal entities. A small or newly established space may be able to operate perfectly well with one. The example instead shows that the legal structure can develop together with the organization. If commercial manufacturing becomes a substantial part of the work, for example, it may eventually make sense to separate this from grant-funded community activities.

Administrative documents can easily be treated as paperwork that needs to exist for legal reasons and is then forgotten. The workshop made a different case: good documentation can help clarify how an organization works and protect it when problems arise.

This is particularly important for NGOs: Andrii described the statutes as “the fundamental document, especially for NGOs.” When drafting them, makerspaces should therefore think carefully about the activities they actually plan to undertake.

The same applies to day-to-day rules. Makerspaces are environments in which people use machinery and tools, sometimes in shared or rented facilities. During the workshop, participants discussed what happens if somebody is injured while using equipment and how responsibilities can be documented. Andrii stressed that “Documenting completed safety briefings provides important legal protection.”

For makerspaces, this means that basic administrative procedures should not be neglected: Keeping records of safety briefings, defining internal rules and documenting who has been informed about them can be part of practical risk management. The workshop's broader message was that legal documents work best when they reflect how the makerspace actually operates, rather than existing only to fulfil a formal requirement.

Small makerspaces often start informally, and this can be an advantage in the beginning. However, as activities, budgets and responsibilities grow, arrangements that once worked through personal trust can become difficult to manage. The workshop therefore encouraged makerspaces to establish appropriate administrative processes before a problem makes them necessary.

One example discussed was how NGOs handle different types of income. Participants asked whether residents who are also NGO members could pay membership fees. Andrii confirmed that membership fees can be collected when they support the organisation's statutory objectives. At the same time, he warned against presenting what is effectively payment for a commercial product or service as a charitable donation, as this can create tax-related problems.

Another example concerned the registration of economic activity codes, or KVEDs. Rather than registering every activity the organization could conceivably undertake in the future, Andrii recommended choosing codes that correspond to the actual work of the organization. “There is no need to register 200–300 activity codes... that is a red flag for the tax authorities.”

For newer makerspaces, this also points to a useful shortcut: do not develop every administrative process from zero. Ask established makerspaces which templates, agreements, safety procedures or organizational documents they already use, and adapt relevant examples to your own situation. At the same time, legal and tax requirements need to be checked for the specific organization and current Ukrainian legislation.

If you want to dive deeper into this topic and explore the approaches and examples discussed during the workshop, you can find the full presentation (Ukrainian language) here:

File:Legal Structure for Makerspaces.pdf