The issue of conducting searches—especially without prior court authorization—has for years remained one of the most contentious points of interaction between law enforcement, the business community, and citizens. This procedure, which is essentially an exceptional investigative tool, has in practice often been turned into a means of pressure and intimidation. Following a series of controversial legislative initiatives—including the widely criticized Bill No. 12414 and the inherently dangerous Bill No. 13533— a new attempt to regulate this area has appeared on the agenda—Draft Law No. 13599 of August 4, 2025, “On Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine Regarding the Strengthening of Human Rights Protection During Searches.”

This document deserves close attention because, unlike its predecessors, it proposes solutions to the key problems that my colleagues and I have repeatedly highlighted. It appears that lawmakers have finally heeded the arguments of the legal community.

The Key Issue: Why the Changes Were Necessary

For a long time, the main loophole that made manipulation possible was the provision of Part 3 of Article 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. It allowed an investigator to enter a residence without a court order in urgent cases related to “saving human lives and property.”

It was precisely the vague wording “saving property” that became the Trojan horse allowing law enforcement to conduct searches in virtually any case. In its ruling, the Supreme Court equated the concept of “preserving property” with “preserving physical evidence.” This decision legalized the possibility of conducting an extrajudicial search in any criminal proceeding, since any item can be deemed potential evidence requiring “preservation.” As a result, cases related to commercial activities have become particularly vulnerable to such abuses.

Analysis of the Positive Provisions of Draft Law No. 13599

The new draft law takes a systematic approach to addressing the issue, taking into account both the requirements of the Constitution of Ukraine and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Exhaustive list of grounds for entry

The most significant achievement of the bill is the establishment, in Article 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of a clear and exhaustive list of urgent cases permitting entry into a residence without a judge’s order. From now on, this is possible only in situations related to:

• saving people’s lives, preventing an immediate threat to their health, sexual freedom, or personal safety;
• the direct pursuit of persons suspected of committing specific, predominantly violent and serious, crimes. The list of articles in the Criminal Code of Ukraine is clearly defined: 115–118 (intentional homicide), 121 (serious bodily injury), 127 (torture), 146–147 (unlawful deprivation of liberty, hostage-taking), 149 (human trafficking), 152–153, 155–156–1 (sexual offenses), 258–259 (terrorism and related crimes).
• Apprehending individuals red-handed who are suspected of receiving unlawful benefits (Articles 368, 369 of the Criminal Code), which maintains the effectiveness of the fight against corruption for the NABU.

“Preservation of evidence” instead of “preservation of property”: an end to manipulation

Draft Law No. 13599 finally resolves the issue of the substitution of terms. The new version of Article 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows entry into a residence for the “urgent seizure or preservation of physical evidence,” but with a key caveat: this applies only to evidence of crimes “provided for in the aforementioned articles.”

This is the most important safeguard. It means that it will be impossible to enter an office to “preserve evidence” in a case involving tax evasion or another economic crime that is not included in the exhaustive list.

Strengthening Judicial Oversight

The bill not only limits the grounds for a search but also introduces an effective post-search oversight mechanism by amending several articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

• Article 233 of the CPC: A strict 48-hour deadline is established for applying to the court to legalize a search that has been conducted. The motion must be considered in an open hearing with the mandatory participation of the person whose premises were searched and their defense counsel, thereby ensuring the adversarial nature of the proceedings;
• Article 235 of the CPC: New requirements are imposed on the ruling authorizing a search that has already been conducted. The judge is required to assess the relevance of each seized item to the criminal proceedings. A formalistic approach and “copy-paste” motions from the investigator will serve as grounds for overturning such a ruling;
• Article 206 of the CPC: The judge’s general obligations regarding the protection of human rights are expanded. Now, the investigating judge is required to respond to violations of the rights not only of persons in custody but also of those who were searched without a warrant;
• Articles 303 and 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: the right to challenge decisions, actions, or inaction by an investigator or prosecutor during the legalization of a search is introduced, as well as—most importantly—the right to appeal the investigating judge’s ruling itself, which legalized the search. Previously, this option did not exist.

Conclusions

Bill No. 13599 is a significant step forward in the protection of fundamental human rights. It does not merely correct terminological shortcomings but changes the very philosophy of the approach, limiting arbitrary action and strengthening judicial oversight. As I noted earlier, our struggle should not be over the powers of one law enforcement agency or another, but over the inviolability of the principles of the rule of law. This bill is precisely such an initiative. It protects the inviolability of the home and the right to property, and establishes clear, predictable rules of the game for everyone. I hope that the professional community and Parliament will support this initiative to put an end to the practice of using searches as a tool for unlawful pressure.