14.09.2026
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine has published Decision No. 11-r(I)/2026, delivered on 10 September 2026, in the case upon the constitutional complaint of Oleksandra Matviichuk on the constitutionality of Article 18840 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences and Article 22 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights”.
The Court held that Article 18840 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences and Article 22 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights”, which establish an obligation to cooperate with the Commissioner and provide for an administrative liability for failure to comply with his/her lawful requests, are consistent with the Constitution of Ukraine (are constitutional).
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine concluded that “the State has established a comprehensive regulatory mechanism of parliamentary oversight over compliance with the constitutional human and citizen’s rights and freedoms, thereby ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to seek protection of his/her rights from the Commissioner and vesting the Commissioner with the powers of authority necessary to exercise parliamentary oversight within the limits established by the Constitution of Ukraine and the law. The obligation to cooperate with the Commissioner, established by Article 22 of the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights’, constitutes one of the safeguards of everyone’s right to petition the Commissioner for the protection of his/her rights, as guaranteed by Article 55.3 of the Constitution of Ukraine”.
At the same time, the Court noted that, in this case, the Pecherskyi District Court of the City of Kyiv held O. Matviichuk administratively liable for failing to comply with the Commissioner’s lawful requests. The proceedings concerned an alleged violation by O. Matviichuk, in her capacity as head of a public organization, of the requirements of the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals”. The court’s judgment was upheld by the Kyiv Court of Appeal. Thus, the Commissioner’s lawful requests in the case of O. Matviichuk were related to the obligation to respond to citizens’ appeals, which implicitly raised the issue of the constitutional basis for those obligations of the Law of Ukraine “On the Citizens’ Appeals” that impose such an obligation on public associations and, consequently, make it impossible for the Commissioner to oversee compliance with that obligation.
In this regard, in Decision No. 11-r(I)/2026, the Court formulated the following legal positions:
- “The legal nature (in particular, the purpose and principles governing the establishment and activities) of public associations as voluntary associations of individuals and/ or legal entities under private law, as a general rule, is not compatible with the imposition by Ukrainian legislation of an obligation on them to respond to citizens’ appeals. Therefore, imposing on all public associations, as private-law entities, an obligation to respond to appeals from other private individuals that is identical in content and scope to the obligation imposed on public authorities is unjustified.” The Court concluded that “the obligation to respond to citizens’ appeals may be extended by law to public associations, the activities of which are of a public nature” (subparagraph 8.4 of paragraph 8 of the reasoning part);
- “The Commissioner’s oversight of the exercise of the right to petition addressed by citizens to public associations the activities of which are of a public nature is aimed at preventing abuses in the exercise of the rights granted to such associations to participate in public administration”; “by contrast, oversight of the exercise of the right to petition addressed by citizens to public associations that do not exercise public-authority powers or receive funding from the State Budget of Ukraine or local budgets is unjustified. The purpose of the activities of such public associations is to exercise and protect their rights and freedoms and to pursue public interests on the principles of voluntariness and self-governance”; “given that, as a general rule, the legal nature of public associations is not compatible with imposing on them an obligation to respond to citizens’ appeals, State oversight, through the Commissioner, of compliance with this right by public associations that do not exercise public-authority powers or receive funding from the State Budget of Ukraine or local budgets may restrict the freedom of civic activity” (subparagraph 8.5 of paragraph 8 of the reasoning part).
Judge-Rapporteur in the case – Olha Sovhyria.
