The specialization of judges in military cases violates constitutional principles – UNBA

The creation of a special hierarchy of judges to hear specific types of criminal offenses and granting them exclusive jurisdiction is inconsistent with the constitutional principles of justice.

This conclusion was reached by the Ukrainian National Bar Association following an analysis of Draft Law No. 15084 dated March 17, 2026, «On amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the composition of the court in cases of criminal offenses against the established order of military service (military criminal offenses), criminal offenses against peace, the security of humanity, and the international legal order».

The draft proposes that proceedings regarding military criminal offenses, as well as offenses against peace, the security of humanity, and the international legal order, be heard in courts of first and appellate instance only by judges with the relevant specialization. If a case is heard by a panel, the chairman of the court must also be such a judge. A corresponding amendment is being introduced to Article 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which regulates the composition of the court.

The authors of the initiative explain the need for these changes by the heavy burden on the justice system caused by military proceedings. Among the arguments cited are over 220,000 registered proceedings concerning crimes of aggression and war crimes, the need for special training of judges, more efficient use of such training resources, as well as the need to ensure an adequate level of trust in judges on the part of military personnel.

The UNBA noted that any legislative proposal must comply with the principle of the rule of law, even under conditions of instability caused by changes in the state’s socio-political, economic, or military spheres.

According to Article 125 of the Constitution, the judicial system in Ukraine is based on the principles of territoriality and specialization and is defined by the Law «On the judicial system and the status of judges». Article 18 of this Law defines the criteria for courts that specialize in hearing civil, criminal, commercial, and administrative cases, as well as cases involving administrative offenses. Thus, the advocates conclude, the specialization of courts is already provided for by law.

The UNBA also rejected the logic of «trust» as a separate basis for the new model: doubts regarding a court’s impartiality should be resolved through the procedural mechanisms for recusal provided for in Articles 75 and 80 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, rather than by designating a separate group of judges for specific categories of proceedings.

Separately, the advocates drew attention to the scope of the proposed specialization, which covers not only military criminal offenses but also all crimes under Sections XIX and XX of the Criminal Code. At the same time, certain articles, such as Articles 436, 436-1, and 436-3 of the Criminal Code, do not specify a military servicemember as a special subject of the crime.

In light of the above, the UNBA believes that the draft law is in systemic conflict with constitutional principles and cannot be adopted. This position (which can be viewed in full at this link) has been sent to the Verkhovna Rada Committee on law enforcement, which has been designated as the lead committee in reviewing the draft.