Automatic extension of detention violates the right to defense, - says Constitutional Court
The obstacles to access to court and the violation of the right to be heard in court for a person in such an important matter as the extension of the term of detention, established by the provisions of the CPC, mean that it is impossible to exercise the right to defense guaranteed by part two of Article 63 of the Constitution.
This was specifically noted by the Constitutional Court in a case concerning guarantees of judicial review of the observance of the rights of persons held in custody (decision of 18 July 2025 No. 8-r(II)/2024).
In this case, part 6 of Article 615 of the CPC was challenged, according to which «if the term of a court decision on detention expires and it is impossible for the court to consider the issue of extending the term of detention in accordance with the procedure established by this Code, the preventive measure in the form of detention shall be considered extended until the relevant issue is resolved by the court, but for no more than two months».
The Constitutional Court noted that the legislator's regulation of the procedure for resolving the issue of extending the term of detention as a preventive measure in a manner that does not provide for the participation of a court (judge) results in a violation of the constitutional right of everyone to judicial protection (Article 55(1) of the Constitution) in conjunction with the right to liberty and personal inviolability (Article 29(1)) and the right of the accused to defense (Article 63(2)).
The Constitutional Court also stated that, in the context of the case, the human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the aforementioned articles of the Constitution cannot be restricted under martial law. The principles of the rule of law, separation of powers, and respect for human rights and freedoms remain the foundations of Ukraine's democratic constitutional order.
Guided by these and other considerations, the Constitutional Court found Part 6 of Article 615 of the CPC to be unconstitutional.
The full text of the Constitutional Court's decision can be found at link.
We remind you that, in accordance with Articles 63 and 131-2 of the Constitution, a suspect, accused or defendant has the right to defense. Only an advocate may defend against criminal charges.
Popular news
Discussion
Occupational safety during wartime: legal risks and employer liability
On October 21, the National Bar Association of Ukraine held a round table discussion on «Occupational safety in conditions of martial law». Participants discussed how the war has changed the requirements for safe working conditions, what guarantees remain for employees, and what responsibility employers bear for violations of legislation in this area.
Self-government
BCU condemned information attacks on advocacy
Bar Council of Ukraine strongly condemned the coordinated campaign to discredit advocacy, in particular the leadership of the Odessa region bar association. Protecting colleagues from manipulation and misrepresentation became a separate item on the agenda of the BCU meeting on October 17–18.
Self-government
Approaches to remuneration of advocates in the FLA system must change – L. Izovitova
Payments to advocates in the free legal aid system are made after court proceedings are completed and can take years. During this time, advocates provide protection without payment, essentially lending money to the state. This practice contradicts Article 43 of the Constitution.
Self-government
The BCU holds its October meeting in Lviv region
The Bar Council of Ukraine is starting its next two-day meeting today, 17 October. Items on the agenda include issues relating to the activities of bar self-government bodies, the implementation of the institution's tasks and interaction, and the consideration of requests for clarification.
Interaction
Advocates discussed possible areas of cooperation with the business ombudsman
Protecting the legitimate interests of businesses is a common area of work for advocacy and the Business Ombudsman Council. The former is an independent constitutional institution within the justice system, while the latter is an important element of the mechanism for responding to complaints from entrepreneurs.
Self-government
The BCU's decision regarding Maselko's actions does not constitute pressure on him — conclusion of the HCJ
The High Council of Justice did not find any signs of pressure on this member of the High Council of Justice in the decision of the Bar Council of Ukraine No. 82 of 12 August 2025 on Roman Maselko's interference in the practice of law. The BCU document was adopted within the scope of its powers and was not intended to influence the activities of a member of the HCJ.
Other
The business ombudsman was presented with a book about his grandfather, an advocate
The life story of Ukrainian advocate Kornel Vashchuk, who combined military experience and legal integrity, was included in the scientific and documentary publication «100 years of the Union of Ukrainian Advocates: articles, materials, documents».
Legislation
UNBA supported the draft law on restoring sovereignty
The Ukrainian people alone have the right to form state authorities. Delegating powers to form authorities to persons who are not citizens of Ukraine is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution.
Publications
Censor.net Protecting advocates – protecting justice: addressing concerns about the new law
Ihor Kolesnykov A BRIEF SUMMARY REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDER ON EXTENDED CONFISCATION IN LATVIA REGARDING FINANCIAL ASSETS OF…
Valentyn Gvozdiy WORKING IN A WAR ZONE
Lydia Izovitova Formula of perfection
Sergiy Vylkov Our judicial system is so built that courts do not trust advocates
Iryna Vasylyk Advocacy in the proclamation of Independence of Ukraine
Oleksandr DULSKY When we cross the border of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court, we get into another department of the National Anti-Corruption…
Vadym Krasnyk The UNBA will work, and all obstacles and restrictions are only temporary inconveniences