---
title: "End of automatic arrest: KSU annuls the norm requiring the detention of military personnel without choosing a preventive measure"
description: "The Constitutional Court of Ukraine has annulled the norm on the automatic arrest of military personnel, declaring it unconstitutional. Now judges will be able to choose a preventive measure, rather than being obliged to detain all suspects without alternatives. 🏛️⚖️"
date: 2026-06-24T19:14:00.000Z
lang: en
url: https://xab.info/en/posts/end-of-automatic-arrest-ksu-annuls-detention-norm-for-military
tags: []
publisher: "XAB.info"
---

# End of automatic arrest: KSU annuls the norm requiring the detention of military personnel without choosing a preventive measure

![Military personnel in handcuffs: symbol of abolished mandatory arrest norm for soldiers](https://xab.info/media/2026/06/24/ksu-otmenil-avtomaticheskiy-arest-voennykh/ksu-otmenil-avtomaticheskiy-arest-voennykh-1.webp)

A fundamental change has occurred in the Ukrainian judicial system, affecting the rights of military personnel. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) has declared unconstitutional the norm that obliged judges to automatically select detention as a preventive measure for military personnel suspected of crimes during martial law. This decision restores the court's right to choose and evaluate the circumstances of each specific case.

### The end of the era of non-alternative arrest

Until today, Part 8 of Article 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) acted as a strict imperative for justice. It prescribed that judges apply only one preventive measure to military personnel accused of committing certain military crimes — detention.

Judges had no room for maneuver. Alternative options, such as house arrest, bail, or a personal undertaking, were legislatively excluded from consideration. Regardless of the severity of the offense or the circumstances of the case, the automatic mechanism led to one result — arrest.

### Decision of the Second Senate of the CCU

The Second Senate of the Constitutional Court ruled that such a practice contradicts the foundations of a rule of law state. The CCU judges argued their decision by stating that non-alternative arrest "distorts the very essence of justice." It effectively deprives the judge of the ability to make a reasoned decision based on discretion and analysis of facts.

In the opinion of the CCU, this norm violates fundamental human rights enshrined in the Constitution: the right to freedom, equality before the law, and respect for human dignity. Now, the judge is obliged to choose a preventive measure based on the specific situation, rather than simply "stamping" arrests.

### Initiator and context of the case

The case was initiated by military serviceman Serhiy Hnezdilov, who filed a constitutional complaint challenging the operation of this norm. In practice, the rule on non-alternative detention has been in effect since the introduction of martial law. It covered a wide range of cases, including unauthorized absence from the unit.

Courts were forced to choose arrest even in cases that could not be called serious crimes. Although in practice courts could determine the amount of bail (usually from 20 to 80 subsistence minimums), the preventive measure itself remained unchanged and rigid.

### Transitional period

The norm will lose its legal force not instantly, but three months after the adoption of the decision. This period is provided for the Verkhovna Rada to adopt the necessary amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and legislatively enshrine the new rules for selecting preventive measures for military personnel.