The Constitutional Court of Ukraine annulled the provision that allowed the Cabinet of Ministers to independently restrict rights during epidemics
The government may determine the procedure for restrictions, but not introduce new ones
Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared unconstitutional the provision that allowed the Cabinet of Ministers to independently establish temporary restrictions on the rights of natural and legal persons during the spread of infectious diseases. The Grand Chamber of the CCU adopted decision No. 4-r/2026 on 29 September 2026 — from that day the contested provision lost force.
The case was considered on the constitutional submission of the Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for Human Rights. The subject of the review was a specific provision of part four of Article 29 of the law “On the Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases”, which provided for the establishment of temporary restrictions on the rights of natural and legal persons.
According to the court, this provision gave the government the opportunity to, at its own discretion, restrict constitutional rights and freedoms in the context of the spread of infectious diseases dangerous to life and health. Instead, the grounds and conditions for such restrictions should be directly defined by law by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The court found that transferring these powers to the government contradicted the Constitution of Ukraine.
In its decision the court explained the principle of protecting rights as follows:
“Public authorities must interpret any doubts about their powers to restrict rights and freedoms from the standpoint of protecting those rights and freedoms, which includes guaranteeing that restrictions are imposed only on the basis of law.”
At the same time, the decision does not deprive the Cabinet of Ministers of the ability to regulate the application of temporary restrictions. The government may detail the procedure for their implementation if the Constitution and the laws of the Ukraine already define:
- the grounds for restrictions;
- their lawful purpose;
- the scope of the restrictions;
- the manner of their application.
Thus, the court distinguished between the introduction of restrictions and the determination of the procedure for their implementation: the government may regulate the implementation of rules established by law, but may not independently introduce new restrictions on constitutional rights and freedoms.
The CCU planned to publish the full text of the decision and its summary on 30 September. A related context is the court’s earlier refusal to consider the case regarding the constitutionality of the weekend quarantine.
Earlier we wrote:
