****
### 1. Substance of the Document
This document is a joint separate (concurring) opinion of the judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, Oleksandr Vodiannikov and Serhiy Riznyk, regarding Decision of the CCU No. 3-r/2026 in the case concerning the constitutionality of restrictions on the right to leave under martial law. The judges fully supported the Court’s decision on the merits, yet provided deeper legal reasoning on fundamental issues of the constitutional order that the majority of judges bypassed. In particular, they elaborated on the boundaries of the powers of the branches of government during martial law, the requirements for determining the duration of restrictions on human rights, and the integration of European Union law standards into Ukrainian constitutional justice.
### 2. Structure of the Document, Main Provisions, and Differences from Previous Approaches
The document has a clear structure consisting of an introduction and five thematic sections:
* **Allocation of Competences:** It is substantiated that the President of Ukraine, solely in the Decree on the Introduction of Martial Law, determines the list of rights that are temporarily restricted. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine has no constitutional power to expand this list through its laws.
* **Terms of Restrictions:** The requirement of Part Two of Article 64 of the Constitution regarding the mandatory specification of the duration of restrictions is analyzed.
* **The Doctrine of the “Essence of the Right”:** The absolute limits of interference with the right to rest are examined.
* **The *work-life balance* Principle:** The balance between work and personal life is conceptualized at the constitutional level for the first time.
* **EU Law:** The methodology of using EU acts as benchmarks for constitutional review is defined.
**Difference from previous practice:** The judges proposed to depart from a formal analysis of restrictions and introduce a three-step test to determine the “essence of the right.” They also clearly distinguished the concept of an “objective term” of martial law from an unconstitutional “individualized term” (which depends on the will of the employer or the conduct of the employee).
### 3. Key Provisions Important for Practical Application
For practicing lawyers, human rights defenders, and legislators, the following conclusions of the judges are the most important:
1. **Inadmissibility of “Individualized Terms” of Restrictions:** Any restriction of constitutional rights during martial law must have a universal and predetermined duration. If the lifting of a restriction is tied to individual circumstances (for example, “until the moment of using deferred leave days”), this violates the principle of legal certainty.
2. **Inviolability of the Core of the Right to Rest:** Ensuring the minimum duration of annual leave (24 calendar days) and its payment constitutes the inseparable essence of the right to rest, which cannot be restricted or revoked under any circumstances, even during war. Granting such leave without retention of salary is impermissible.
3. **Constitutional Status of *work-life balance*:** The principle of balance between work and personal life is recognized as an immanent value of the Constitution of Ukraine (derived from Articles 3 and 45). This means that labor cannot reduce a person solely to a production function, and the state is obliged to ensure conditions for the non-work-related development of the individual.
4. **EU Law as a Benchmark of Constitutionality:** The course toward European integration enshrined in the Constitution obliges the interpretation of national rights and freedoms in compatibility with EU standards (specifically, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and relevant Directives), which de facto limits legislative discretion when adopting labor and social laws.
