Legal issue: whether it is true that the contested provisions permit to arbitrarily establish the territorial jurisdiction of cases concerning the complaints against the decisions and actions (or failure to act) of the officials of investigative agencies and by so doing contradict the Constitution?

Ratio decidendi: the Court has deemed the contested rules to be contradictory to the Constitution, because they give an opportunity to determine and change the territorial jurisdiction by a decision of the State body having power to determine and change the jurisdiction of one or another investigative agency and its place of location, whereas the adoption of such decision, as a rule, is conditioned upon the availability of human, financial, material or technical resources and similar factors. The jurisdiction of a court must be defined exclusively by a law; the mere purpose of rational organization of the activities of official bodies may not justify restrictions upon the rights and freedoms, including the right to judicial defense. The Court has prescribed to the legislator to make necessary changes to the Criminal Procedure Code, and decreed that till that time the consideration of corresponding complaints must be administered by the district court at the location of the place of incriminated action.