What decision will the Grand Chamber take on the application of the "Lozovyi amendments"

The "Lozovyi amendments" are a package of changes to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine adopted in 2017, under the previous convocation of the Verkhovna Rada, on the initiative of Member of Parliament Andrii Lozovyi. Among other things, they concerned limiting the duration of pre-trial investigations and expanding judicial control, including over matters for which such control is not inherent.

Unfortunately, these changes had a negative impact on the effectiveness of pre-trial investigations. And although most of them have already been repealed, the possibility of closing a case due to the expiry of pre-trial investigation time limits still remains. Judicial practice in applying these provisions also continues to differ.

On February 25, 2026, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court may put an end to this issue, as a criminal proceeding that was closed due to the ambiguous application of the "Lozovyi amendments" has been referred to its consideration.

What is the key problem?

Although the limitations on investigation time limits before a notice of suspicion (one component of the "Lozovyi amendments") have already been repealed, the legislation still contains a critical provision that allows criminal proceedings to be closed solely because of a formal breach of procedural time limits, even if the delay amounts to only a few days. The situation is further complicated by conflicting interpretations of the rules for extending these time limits. As a result, courts may close proceedings even in cases where, in fact, no time limit has been missed. This is precisely what creates legal uncertainty.

As it turned out, the most serious legal problem is the question of who, from March 16, 2018, was responsible for extending pre-trial investigation time limits in joined and separated criminal proceedings. This is because the "Lozovyi amendments" entered into force on that date and, among other things, transferred the authority to extend investigation time limits to six and twelve months from heads of prosecutor's offices to investigating judges.

However, there were criminal proceedings initiated before that date. In the course of pre-trial investigation, such proceedings could be joined with criminal proceedings initiated after March 16, 2018. If such proceedings are joined, they are considered a single proceeding and deemed to have commenced on the date when the "old" criminal proceeding was initiated.

Seemingly to avoid misunderstandings when introducing these amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, Members of Parliament added an important note, which practitioners relied on: if proceedings were initiated before the entry into force of the "Lozovyi amendments", the authority to extend the investigation to six or twelve months remained with the prosecution, while the new rules for extending time limits—through an investigating judge—were to be applied only to cases registered after that date. However, this only worsened the understanding of the provision.

The judicial dilemma

The practice of judges in local and appellate courts differed on this issue: some closed joined proceedings (due to what they considered an unlawful extension of time limits by a prosecutor), while others refused to do so, arguing that the decisive factor was the date of registration of the "primary" proceeding, not subsequent joinders or separations.

There were divergent positions even within the Supreme Court. A high-profile decision of the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of October 31, 2022 ultimately deepened the problem. It held that throughout those four years, in joined or separated criminal proceedings, the investigation time limits of six and twelve months should have been extended by an investigating judge rather than a prosecutor. In effect, this decision was unforeseeable for practitioners, as it post factum created a rule that did not exist at the time procedural decisions were taken in criminal proceedings, thereby threatening the future of a large number of cases.

For example, on the basis of this decision, the first instance of the High Anti-Corruption Court closed the "Rotterdam+" case concerning abuse amounting to UAH 19 billion, as well as an episode of the "gas case" involving the Dubnevych brothers concerning the embezzlement of gas from Naftogaz of Ukraine amounting to UAH 1.4 billion. These decisions were later overturned by the HACC Appeals Chamber.

Almost two years later — on 7 October 2024 — the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court returned to this issue and clarified its previous position: the investigation time limits in joined proceedings could also be extended by the head of the prosecutor's office.

As a result, two different approaches emerged as to who was authorized to extend investigation time limits. In our view, however, only one of them at least partially resolves the problems embedded by the legislator in designing the rules on extending pre-trial investigation time limits.

How this problem can be resolved

On the one hand, it is precisely the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court that is vested with the authority to resolve exceptional legal issues and ensure the development of the law. Accordingly, it is up to the Grand Chamber to decide whether the legal position it formulates will result in a predictable application of the provision or further deepen the problems caused by the unrepealed part of the "Lozovyi amendments".

On the other hand, since the source of the problem lies in flawed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code, Parliament can eliminate the shortcomings left by the previous convocation by repealing the possibility of automatic closure of cases due to the expiry of pre-trial investigation time limits. Moreover, draft laws have already been registered. Namely, alternatives to the governmental draft law No. 12367, which has since been withdrawn.

Finally, the issue of pre-trial investigation time limits has even attracted the attention of the European Commission. In its enlargement report recommendations for Ukraine, the Commission indicated that the provisions on the automatic closure of criminal cases due to the expiry of pre-trial investigation time limits should be removed from the Criminal Procedure Code — i.e., the still-effective part of the "Lozovyi amendments" should be repealed once and for all.

Pavlo Demchuk, Senior Legal Advisor at TI Ukraine

This publication was prepared within the framework of the "Digitalization for Growth, Integrity, and Transparency" (UK DIGIT) project, implemented by the Eurasia Foundation and funded by UK Dev. The material was produced with the financial support of the UK Government's International Development Assistance Programme. The contents of this material are the sole responsibility of Transparency International Ukraine; the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Government of the United Kingdom.