Legislation in question: provisions  of parts 3 and 9 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Legal issue: The constitutionality of the provisional freezing of person’s property within the framework of pre-trial investigation, given that such person is not a suspect or accused or a person bearing civil liability in the context of the respective criminal case, but there are sufficient reasons to believe that the property in question has been received by him as a result of criminal actions of a suspect or an accused.

Ratio decidendi: The issue concerns the property which is allegedly received as a result of criminal actions of a suspect or an accused, and which is in lawful possession (or ownership) of third persons. The Constitutional Court found that in the existing system of legal regulation the term of such freezing is highly dependent upon the factors influencing the duration of preliminary investigation and court proceedings in the criminal case, and after all it may be extended until the statute of limitation expires. Besides, the criminal procedure law does not provide for a special mechanism of compensating losses to the owner of the arrested property when such losses have been caused by exceedingly long restriction upon his rights. Such regulation may not be regarded as an efficient remedy for the purposes of protecting the rights of the owner of the frozen property. Consequently, it does not conform to the Constitution. The legislator must amend it so as to restrict the duration of the freezing of property of such persons. Until then courts, when allowing the applications of investigative authorities must indicate in the respective ruling a reasonable and not exceeding the terms of pre-trial investigation time period for operation of this compulsory procedural measure which if necessary may be extended by a court.