11 March 2026

On 11 March 2026, during the public part of the plenary session, the Second Senate deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Tetiana Pomirko in the form of written proceedings.

During the plenary session, the Judge-Rapporteur in the case, Oleg Pervomayskyi, presented the content of the constitutional complaint and the applicant's arguments.

The Judge-Rapporteur noted that the Third Board of Judges of the Second Senate, by its Decision dated 23 December 2025, initiated constitutional proceedings in this case, determining that the subject of constitutional review in this case is Article 303.2 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine (hereinafter, the “Code”), according to which complaints against other decisions, actions or inaction of an investigator, inquiry officer or prosecutor are not considered during the pre-trial investigation and may be considered during the preparatory proceedings in court in accordance with the rules of Articles 314–316 of the Code.

The content of the constitutional complaint and the materials attached to it indicate the following. On 4 March 2025, the subject of the right to a constitutional complaint  applied to Police Department No. 1 of the Lviv District Police Department No. 2 of the Main Department of the National Police in the Lviv Region (hereinafter, the “Police Department”) with a statement about the commission of a crime by certain members of the expert qualification commission of the Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, in which she requested that the relevant information be entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (hereinafter, the “Register”) and that a pre-trial investigation be initiated.

Due to the failure to enter such information, the lawyer, acting in the interests of Tetiana Pomirko appealed against the inaction of the Police Department. By a ruling of the investigating judge of the Zaliznytskyi District Court of Lviv dated 11 March 2025, the authorised person of the Police Department was obliged to consider the statement. After resubmitting the complaint, the lawyer requested that the authorised persons be obliged to enter the information about criminal offences set out in the application dated 4 March 2025 into the Register. By a ruling dated 24 March 2025, this complaint was upheld, and on 28 March 2025, the investigator of the Police Department entered the relevant information into the Register.

Subsequently, the lawyer applied to the Police Department with a request to bring the information entered in the Register into line with the requirements set out in the Regulations on the Register, the procedure for its formation and maintenance, approved by Order of the Prosecutor General No. 298 dated 30 June 2020. The investigating judge of the Zaliznytskyi District Court of Lviv, by a ruling dated 21 May 2025, ordered the Police Department to consider the aforementioned request.

By a ruling of the investigating judge of the Zaliznytskyi District Court of Lviv dated 23 July 2025, the initiating of proceedings on the lawyer's complaint about the inaction of the Police Department in failing to enter information about the criminal offence into the Register was refused. The Lviv Court of Appeal, in its ruling dated 4 August 2025, left this decision unchanged, noting that “the mere fact that the investigator did not fully describe the facts of the alleged criminal offence in the extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations cannot be appealed to the investigating judge”.

The subject of the constitutional complaint asserts that the contested provisions of the Code are formulated in an indefinite, unclear and ambiguous manner, which does not ensure their uniform application, does not exclude unlimited interpretation in law enforcement practice and inevitably leads to arbitrariness.

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 Volodymyr Dmytrenko.

The video recording of the plenary session is available on the Court’s official website in the Section “Archive of Video Broadcasts of Sessions”.