The Constitutional Court of Ukraine has declared unconstitutional part six of Article 615 of the CPC of Ukraine regarding the automatic extension of the term of detention under martial law. This refers to situations where UNN reports this with reference to the CCU.
On July 18, 2024, the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine at its plenary session adopted Decision No. 8-r(II)/2024 in the case on constitutional complaints of Ruslan Onishchenko and Dmytro Havryliuk regarding the constitutionality of part six of Article 615 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter - the Code).
Details
It is noted that in accordance with the disputed provisions of the Code, "in case of expiration of the court decision on detention and the court cannot consider the issue of extending the term of detention in accordance with the procedure established by this Code, the chosen preventive measure in the form of detention is considered to be extended until the relevant issue is resolved by the court, but not more than for two months".
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized part six of Article 615 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine as inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine,
In support of his constitutional complaint, Ruslan Onishchenko stated that as a result of the application of part six of Article 615 of the Code, his constitutional rights, in particular, to freedom and personal inviolability, access to court, legal aid, defense, and consideration of the case by an independent court in compliance with the fundamental principles of criminal justice, were violated. In support of the argumentation that the disputed provisions of the Code are unconstitutional, the applicant also argued that, in accordance with part two of Article 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine, even under martial law, the rights and freedoms provided for, in particular, by Articles 29, 55, 59, 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine cannot be restricted.
The author of the appeal, Dmytro Havryliuk, stated in his constitutional complaint that as a result of the application of part six of Article 615 of the Code in his case, "the guarantees provided by the Constitution of Ukraine are irreparably violated, in particular, 'the challenged provision leads to a loss of control over the person's imprisonment, as judges do not consider the details and extend the term of the preventive measure automatically.
He also believed that "the provision of the challenged rule does not provide for the court to investigate the circumstances of the risks of obstructing the investigation or avoiding criminal liability and the availability of guarantees of a person's appearance at a court hearing. Thus, a person is kept in custody without a reasoned court decision, i.e. the decision to keep a person in custody does not require justification by the court,