26 March 2026
On 25 March 2026, the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, during the open part of its plenary session held in written proceedings, deliberated a case upon the constitutional complaint of Taras Andreichuk.
During the plenary session, the Judge-Rapporteur in the case Oleksandr Vodiannikov presented the substance of the constitutional complaint and the applicant’s arguments.
The Judge-Rapporteur informed that Mr Andreichuk had petitioned the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the compliance of Article 119.3 of the Labour Code of Ukraine (hereinafter, “Code”) with Article 130.2 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
According to the contested provision of the Code, “employees assigned to basic military service, conscripted for military service as officers, called up for military service during mobilisation for a special period, called up from among reservists during a special period, or engaged in military service under contract […] during the special period until its end or until the day of actual discharge, shall retain their place of work and position at the enterprise, institution or organisation […]. Such employees shall receive monetary allowance at the expense of the State Budget of Ukraine in accordance with the Law of Ukraine ‘On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Members of Their Families’.”
It follows from the constitutional complaint and the attached materials that Mr Andreichuk serves as a judge of the Obolon District Court of Kyiv. From March 2022 to March 2025, he performed military service. For this period, he was released from his duties by an order of the court “with retention of his place of work (position) and average salary.”
In July 2022, amendments were introduced to Article 119.3 of the Code, whereby the words “retain their place of work, position and average salary” were replaced with “retain their place of work and position.” As a result, the payment of judicial remuneration to Mr Andreichuk, as a judge mobilised to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, was discontinued as of July 2022.
Disagreeing with this, he filed an administrative claim against the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine in the city of Kyiv, requesting, inter alia, the calculation and payment of his average salary for a two-month period in 2022, taking into account the amount and allowances of judicial remuneration as determined by Article 135 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges.”
The Kyiv District Administrative Court upheld the claim. At the same time, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal set aside the judgment of the court of first instance and adopted a new decision dismissing the claim. The Supreme Court refused to initiate the cassation proceedings.
Mr Andreichuk submits that, because of the amendments to Article 119.3 of the Code, which excluded provisions on retaining the average salary of mobilised employees, the content and scope of guarantees of judicial independence established by the Constitution of Ukraine and the law have been narrowed, in particular with regard to judicial remuneration.
The Judge-Rapporteur also informed that the Second Senate is currently deliberating a case upon the constitutional complaint of H. Syvukhin, which concerns the same subject of constitutional review. Therefore, a motion has been initiated to join these cases into a single constitutional proceeding.
The Judge further noted that to ensure a comprehensive and objective deliberation of the case and the delivery of a reasoned decision, requests for legal positions or academic opinions had been sent to the President of Ukraine, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, the Minister of Justice of Ukraine, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and experts from academic institutions.
Having examined the case materials, the Court proceeded to the in-camera part of the plenary session.
The plenary session is available on the Court's official website in the Section “Archive of video broadcasts of sessions”.
