Contact center of the Ukrainian Judiciary 044 207-35-46
A court ruling obliging an investigator, inquiry officer or prosecutor to perform a certain action during the pre-trial investigation, delivered after notification of the completion of the pre-trial investigation and disclosure of the materials of the pre-trial investigation, does not resume the pre-trial investigation or the running of its time limit.
The resumption of a pre-trial investigation after its completion, where necessary for the conduct of procedural actions, falls within the exclusive competence of the prosecution, which takes the relevant decision having regard, among other things, to the sufficiency of the time limit prescribed by Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine for the performance of the corresponding actions.
The adoption by an investigator, inquiry officer or prosecutor of a decision refusing to carry out an investigative action is not a procedural act that resumes the running of the pre-trial investigation time limit.
These conclusions were reached by the First Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court following consideration of case No. 753/7396/23.
According to the circumstances of the case, the courts of the previous instances, relying on paragraph 10 of part 1 of Article 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, closed the criminal proceedings against a person charged with a criminal offence under part 2 of Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The courts proceeded on the basis that, by its ruling obliging the pre-trial investigation body to perform a certain action, delivered after the completion of the pre-trial investigation, the investigating judge had automatically resumed the pre-trial investigation and the running of its time limit. In the cassation appeal the prosecutor submitted that the indictment had been referred to the court in good time, because the investigating judge’s ruling does not resume the pre-trial investigation.
In assessing the said cassation submissions, the First Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court indicated that the decision to resume a pre-trial investigation after its completion falls within the exclusive powers of the prosecution. By contrast, the delivery by an investigating judge of a ruling that obliges the prosecution to perform a certain action does not, of itself, resume a completed pre-trial investigation or, accordingly, the running of its time limit, although it may serve as a ground for its resumption by the prosecution. The decision to resume the pre-trial investigation for the purpose of complying with the investigating judge’s ruling is taken by the prosecution having regard, inter alia, to the need to comply with the requirements of Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Depending on the situation that has arisen in the criminal proceedings, the prosecution may take steps to extend the pre-trial investigation time limit for the period necessary to comply with the relevant ruling, and the investigating judge considering such an application must take into account the need to comply with that ruling or, if an extension of the relevant time limit is impossible, decide to refuse to perform the corresponding action by reference to the requirements of Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The Chamber noted that procedural decisions or actions that have not resulted in the conduct of investigative (search) actions, such as the consideration of applications by the defence or, as in the present case, a refusal to carry out a procedural action, do not resume the running of the pre-trial investigation time limit.
Resolution of the First Judicial Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court of the Supreme Court of 2 February 2026 in case No. 753/7396/23 (proceedings No. 51-5656кмп24) – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/134085555.
This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - https://lpd.court.gov.ua.
_03_03.png)