Missing the deadline for appealing against investigator's decisions: are there any objective reasons?

Complaints against decisions, actions or omissions of an investigator, coroner or prosecutor under Article 303(1) of the CPC may be filed by a person within ten days of the decision, action or omission. But what to do when the deadline is missed?

The draft Law No. 11450 dated 29.07.2024 «On Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine to Clarify the Procedure for Obtaining and Appealing Decisions, Actions or Inaction of an Investigator, Detective or Prosecutor» attempts to answer this question in detail.

In particular, the document proposes to supplement Article 304 of the CPC with provisions according to which, in case of missed deadline for filing a complaint, the complaint shall be returned to the person if the person did not raise the issue of renewal of this deadline when filing it. The investigating judge, upon receipt of a relevant application, shall extend the deadline if it was violated for valid reasons (illness, business trip, natural disaster, illness of close relatives, etc.) and if there is a relevant justification. Objective reasons that prevented a person from exercising his or her right to file a complaint in a timely manner may also be recognized as grounds for extending the time limit. Simultaneously with the filing of an application for the extension of the procedural deadline, the complaint in respect of which the deadline was missed must be filed.

At the request of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Law Enforcement, the UNBA Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure analyzed this draft law and noted that it does not specify the procedure for filing an application for the extension of time limits and the relevant complaint.

At the same time, according to part 1 of Article 117 of the CPC, the term missed for valid reasons must be renewed at the request of the interested person by a decision of the investigating judge or court.

The CPC clearly stipulates that the procedural term must be renewed if it was missed for valid reasons. The author of the legislative initiative does not explain the difference between the proposed «objective» reasons and «valid» reasons, nor does he explain the expediency of making these particular changes.

At the same time, some of the proposed changes are already regulated by the current provisions of the Code.

For these and other reasons, the UNBA generally did not support the changes proposed in the Draft Law No. 11450. The full list of comments and suggestions can be found here.

© 2025 Unba.org.ua Всі права захищені
"Національна Асоціація Адвокатів України". Передрук та інше використання матеріалів, що розміщені на даному веб-сайті дозволяється за умови посилання на джерело. Інтернет-видання та засоби масової інформації можуть використовувати матеріали сайту, розміщувати відео з офіційного веб-сайту Національної Асоціації Адвокатів України на власних веб-сторінках, за умови гіперпосилання на офіційний веб-сайт Національної Асоціації Адвокатів України. Заборонено передрук та використання матеріалів, у яких міститься посилання на інші інтернет-видання та засоби масової інформації. Матеріали позначені міткою "Реклама", публікуються на правах реклами.