### 1. Substance of the Document
This document is a Separate Opinion of Olga Sovhyria, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, regarding the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) No. 3-r/2026, which concerns the constitutionality of restrictions on the right to leave under martial law. While generally supporting the aspiration to protect vulnerable categories of employees, the judge criticizes the methodology and logic of the adopted Decision. She emphasizes that the Court’s Decision creates serious legal uncertainty and internal contradictions within the law. In the judge’s opinion, the approach chosen by the Court does not resolve the issue, but only complicates the regulation of labor relations both during the war and in the post-war period.
—
### 2. Structure of the Document, Main Provisions, and Amendments
The document has a clear structure and consists of three thematic sections:
1. **Subject Matter of Constitutional Review in the Case**: The judge points out that the Court declared unconstitutional a provision regulating only the procedure for granting *unused* days of unpaid leave, but in fact assessed another norm (which limits the duration of leave to 24 days) that was not the subject of review. This created a situation where two adjacent paragraphs of the same article of the law contradict each other.
2. **Essence of the Constitutional Right to Rest**: The nature of the right to rest is analyzed. The judge criticizes the Court for equating the essence of this right to the statutory minimum of 24 days. It is also pointed out that the Court acted selectively by protecting persons with disabilities and minors while allowing restrictions on additional social leave (for example, for parents of children with disabilities).
3. **Balance of Interests of the Employer and the Employee**: It is noted that the Court assessed the proportionality of restrictions unilaterally—solely through the prism of the employee’s interests (work-life balance), completely ignoring the interests of employers and the specific context of martial law.
**Regarding the amendments:** The Separate Opinion analyzes the changes that have occurred in the legal landscape as a result of the CCU Decision. In particular, the restrictions on the duration of leave for persons with disabilities and minors, as well as the provisions of the Final Provisions of the Law that determined the timing of the expiration of these restrictions, were declared unconstitutional.
—
### 3. Key Provisions Important for Practical Application
For practicing lawyers, employers, and employees, the key conclusions of this Separate Opinion, which highlight future challenges in legal application, are as follows:
* **Legal Deadlock in Article 12 of the Law**: The CCU Decision has given rise to a conflict of laws. On the one hand, the employer still has the right to limit employees’ leave to 24 days (since paragraph 1 of Article 12 remains in force). On the other hand, due to the invalidation of part of the second paragraph, the employer is now obliged to provide persons with disabilities and minors with paid leave of full duration (exceeding 24 days).
* **Threat of Post-War Leave Collapse**: The invalidation of the norm of the Final Provisions, which regulated the deferral and use of wartime leave in peacetime, destroys the unified mechanism. It is now unclear how accrued days of leave accumulated over the war years are to be granted after the termination of martial law—whether with or without pay retention.
* **Unfettered Discretion of the Employer**: The judge points out that the law grants the employer the right to decide at their own discretion whether or not to pay for the deferred unused days of leave. The lack of clear criteria for such a decision creates conditions for potential arbitrariness towards employees.
