5 March 2026
On 4 March 2026, the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint filed by Aliona Karas and Volodymyr Karas in public part plenary session in the form of written proceedings.
The authors of the petition request that Article 309.1.9 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine (hereinafter, “the Code”) be reviewed for compliance with Articles 129.2.1 and 129.2.8 of the Constitution of Ukraine. According to the aforementioned provision, during the pre-trial investigation, the decisions of the investigating judge on “seizure of property or refusal thereof” may be appealed.
During the plenary session, the Judge-Rapporteur in the case, Vasyl Lemak, a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, informed the court of the content of the constitutional complaint and the materials attached to it. He noted that the Investigative Department of the Main Directorate of the National Police in Vinnytsia Region is conducting a pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings on the grounds of criminal offences specified Article 190.3 and Article 191.5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
By its ruling of 2 September 2020, the Vinnytsia City Court of Vinnytsia Region imposed an arrest on immovable property, prohibiting state registration entities, in particular state or private notaries, from performing any registration actions in relation to one-room apartments that are privately owned by Aliona Karas.
The Vinnytsia City Court of Vinnytsia Region, by its ruling of 26 June 2025, denied the motion of the defence counsel acting on behalf of Aliona Karas and Volodymyr Karas to cancel the measure of securing criminal proceedings in the form of seizure of property, which was applied by the ruling of this court of 2 September 2020.
The Vinnytsia Court of Appeal, in its ruling of 24 July 2025, refused to open appeal proceedings on the appeal filed by the defence counsel acting on behalf of the aforementioned persons against the ruling of the Vinnytsia City Court of Vinnytsia Region of 26 June 2025, given that Article 309 of the Code provides an exhaustive list of rulings of the investigating judge that may be appealed during the pre-trial investigation, but the Code does not provide for the possibility of appealing the rulings of the investigating judge on the cancellation of the seizure of property or on the refusal to cancel such seizure.
The panel of judges of the Second Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court, by its ruling of 22 September 2025, refused to open cassation proceedings on the cassation appeal of the defence counsel acting on behalf of the subjects of the right to constitutional complaint against the ruling of the Vinnytsia Court of Appeal of 24 July 2025 refusing to open appeal proceedings.
The Supreme Court noted that the judge of the court of appeal, at the stage of deciding on the opening of appeal proceedings, in compliance with the requirements of Article 309, Article 399.4 of the Code, correctly concluded that the ruling of the investigating judge of the Vinnytsia City Court of Vinnytsia Region of 26 June 2025 refusing to satisfy the motion to lift the seizure of property was not subject to review on appeal, and therefore refused to open appeal proceedings.
In the opinion of the subjects of the right to a constitutional complaint, the contested provision of the Code violates the right to appeal against rulings of the investigating judge refusing to satisfy a motion to lift the seizure of property, which, in their opinion, is established by Article 129.2.8 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
They also point to a violation of Article 129.2.1 of the Constitution of Ukraine, according to which the fundamental principles of judicial proceedings include, in particular, the equality of all participants in the judicial process before the law and the court. The authors of the petition see such a violation in the fact that, according to the provisions of the Code, on the one hand, the prosecutor has the procedural opportunity to file an appeal if the court refuses to satisfy his motion to seize property, and on the other hand, the defence counsel does not have the procedural opportunity to appeal the court's decision to refuse to satisfy the motion to cancel the seizure of property.
After examining the case materials in the public part of the plenary session, the Court proceeded to the in-camera deliberations for a decision.
The plenary session of the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court was attended by an authorised representative acting on behalf of the person entitled to file a constitutional complaint, lawyer Dmytro Ryabov, and other citizens of Ukraine.
The video recording of the plenary session is available on the Court’s official website in the Section “Archive of Video Broadcasts of Sessions”.
