11.08.2026

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the European Court of Human Rights are increasingly strengthening their bilateral dialogue. The CCU actively relies on the case-law of the ECtHR as a source for interpreting the content of human rights and freedoms. When examining cases concerning Ukraine, the ECtHR takes into account the national constitutional context, the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and domestic legal doctrine. This cooperation is autonomous, non-hierarchical and not based on subordination. It is founded on shared values: the rule of law, human dignity and the protection of fundamental rights.

“The Constitutional Court of Ukraine acts not only as a recipient of the standards of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but also as an active participant in shaping the European legal discourse,” emphasises Acting Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Oleksandr Petryshyn in a collective monograph published to mark the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of Ukraine.

On 23 July 2026, the ECtHR delivered judgments in Kolesnyk and Smelnytskyy v. Ukraine and Derevyanko and Tarasova v. Ukraine, in which it assessed for the first time the compatibility with the Convention of the legislative mechanism governing the application of preventive measures under martial law.

In these judgments, the ECtHR relied on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 7-r(II)/2024 dated 19 June 2024, in which the CCU clearly stated that detention on remand had not been designated as an exceptional preventive measure without an alternative. The Decision emphasised that, when applying detention on remand under Article 176.6 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, bail may, subject to certain grounds and circumstances, be applied as a less restrictive preventive measure. The Judges-Rapporteurs in this case were Viktor Gorodovenko and Volodymyr Moisyk.

In Kolesnyk and Smelnytskyy v. Ukraine, the ECtHR found no violation of the Convention and confirmed that, even in exceptional circumstances, prolonged detention must be based on an individual assessment of the specific risks. At the same time, the particular circumstances of the full-scale war and the administration of justice in frontline regions may be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of such a restriction of liberty.

At the same time, in Derevyanko and Tarasova v. Ukraine, the ECtHR found a violation of the Convention, emphasising that even under martial law, the mere gravity of charges of crimes against national security does not in itself justify detention, and that Ukrainian courts are required to provide individualised, relevant and sufficient grounds for such a preventive measure.

It is worth noting that references to decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine have become an established practice of the ECtHR. In Gumenyuk and Others v. Ukraine, of 22 July 2021, when assessing violations of the applicants’ Convention rights, the ECtHR agreed with the findings of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine set out in its Decision No. 2-r/2020dated 18 February 2020 concerning a violation of the principle of irremovability of judges. The ECtHR found that the applicants had been forced to compete in order to retain their right to perform their professional duties as judges. Moreover, the ECtHR emphasised that the failure of the national authorities to implement this decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, together with the applicants’ prolonged inability to resume the exercise of their judicial functions, seriously undermined legal certainty and the predictability of the constitutional principles of judicial independence.

This consistent approach of the ECtHR has demonstrated not only that decisions of the CCU are taken into account as an integral part of domestic law, but also that their fundamental importance for ensuring fundamental constitutional guarantees in the light of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is recognised at the supranational level. Thus, the above precedents clearly demonstrate that the contemporary dialogue between the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the European Court of Human Rights has become an effective instrument for developing a common European legal space and a multi-level human rights protection system that combines universal European standards with respect for the constitutional identity of our State.