Is a home search allowed without a court order?

A great deal of commotion was caused by the high-profile draft law No.12414, adopted and signed on July 22, 2025. Let politicians handle politics, but when it comes to the next round of long-needed changes to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine—specifically regarding entry into homes and conducting searches—it’s worth a detailed focus, since, unfortunately, lawmakers tend to overlook the long path of reforms the criminal justice system has travelled since 2012 (the adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code) to ensure compliance with European standards for human rights and freedoms.

A symbolic event took place just before, on July 10, 2025, with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Korniets and Others v. Ukraine,” once again emphasizing the importance of procedural guarantees during searches and the state’s duty to investigate complaints of ill-treatment. The Court noted that searches, regardless of their terminology in domestic law (“inspection” or “search”), were interference with private life, which led to violations of Article 8 of the Convention.

Additionally, in its decision, the ECHR highlighted another crucial issue—the inability to challenge the search and police actions overall, resulting in a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

Thus, according to part 3 of Article 233 of the CPCU, an investigator, inquirer, or prosecutor has the right, before a judge’s ruling, to enter a person’s home or property only in urgent cases related to the rescue of life or property or in direct pursuit of persons suspected of committing a criminal offense. This vague wording serves as a tool for manipulation by pre-trial investigation bodies. Currently, it does not matter, during pre-trial investigation, what kind of criminal offense is involved; whom they are saving (or whether anyone is saved at all); what property is being preserved, and most importantly, what significance that property has for the criminal process; whom is being pursued (and whether anyone is actually being pursued). Part 3 of Article 233 of the CPCU allows entry without a judge’s ruling; thus, “they rush in” and later obtain the ruling, as in any case it is impossible to appeal actions during the search, including the ruling, during the investigation. There’s no clear procedural regulation or judicial oversight.

As a result, such “efficient” investigative actions amount to abuse of legal norms by investigative bodies, and after a year, three, five, or ten, we see ECHR decisions similar to “Korniets and Others v. Ukraine.”

Despite the repeal of the main provisions of draft law No.12414 (let’s be honest, a fair repeal), the issue of improving part 3 of Article 233 of the CPCU remains unresolved.

Instead, on August 4, 2025, the Verkhovna Rada received draft law No.13599, which, if adopted, will finally put an end to this long and protracted story of illegal searches (though I am sure our law enforcement will find ways around it).

Thus, draft law No.13599 establishes a clear and exhaustive list of urgent cases in Article 233 of the CPCU, allowing entry into a home without a judge’s approval only in situations involving:

• saving human life, preventing immediate risk to health, sexual freedom, or personal safety;
• direct pursuit of persons suspected of crimes under Articles 115–118, 121, 127, 146, 147, 149, 152, 153, 155, 156-1, 258, 258-1, 259 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine;
• the moment of obtaining unlawful benefit by persons suspected under Articles 368, 369 of the Criminal Code.

Additionally, one of the urgent cases for a search under this draft law is the necessity of immediate seizure or preservation of physical evidence related to the specified crimes if there’s a risk of destruction, concealment, or continued use for further crimes. Note, it is primarily about preserving evidence, not just property, which finally regulates how and what may be seized during a search.

Moreover, the legislator addressed another painful issue — judicial oversight over conduct and consequences of searches. Amendments to Article 235 of the CPCU strengthen requirements for judges, who must assess the connection of each seized item to the criminal case. The draft law introduces the possibility of appealing actions and decisions during the legalisation of a search, including — crucially — a right to appeal the judge’s order legalising the search (Articles 303, 309 of the CPCU).

In summary, draft law No.13599 is a qualitatively new, relevant, and necessary step towards closing gaps in criminal procedural legislation. These changes, if adopted, will end unreasonable use of searches as a tool for unlawful pressure on citizens, business, and parties in criminal proceedings.

Author: Nataliia Zharyuk, criminal law and procedure attorney at Winner Law Firm.