Good day!
1. **Essence of the Decision:** The Constitutional Court of Ukraine refused to open constitutional proceedings on the complaint of citizen Hnezдіlov S.O. regarding the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – CPC of Ukraine), which relate to the application of preventive measures to military personnel during martial law. The Court declared the complaint inadmissible.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* The ruling consists of descriptive and reasoning parts. The descriptive part outlines the essence of the complainant’s appeal, and the reasoning part provides the justification for the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
* The complainant challenged part eight of Article 176 and paragraph eight of part four of Article 183 of the CPC of Ukraine. The first norm stipulates that during martial law, only a preventive measure in the form of detention shall be applied to military personnel suspected of certain crimes against military service. The second norm allows the investigating judge, the court not to determine the amount of bail in criminal proceedings regarding certain crimes, in particular against the foundations of national security, against military service.
* The Constitutional Court of Ukraine refused to open proceedings, since the complainant did not adequately substantiate the assertion regarding the unconstitutionality of paragraph eight of part four of Article 183 of the CPC of Ukraine. In addition, regarding part eight of Article 176 of the CPC of Ukraine, constitutional proceedings have already been opened on another complaint from the same citizen.
3. **Key provisions for use:**
* The ruling confirms that in order to open constitutional proceedings, the complaint must be substantiated and contain a clear indication of which constitutional right has been violated.
* The decision emphasizes that the existence of other proceedings in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine with a similar subject of dispute may be the basis for refusing to open new proceedings.
* The ruling concerns the application of preventive measures during martial law, which is an important aspect of criminal proceedings in the context of hostilities.
