Temporary seizure or court-ordered restraint of a phone in Ukraine

What the law provides

Article 167 of Ukraine’s Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) defines temporary seizure as factual deprivation of the ability to possess, use and dispose of property pending a decision on a restraint order, return or special confiscation. It is a factual, transitional status: the phone has been taken, but taking it is not itself a judicial restraint order.

Under Article 170 CPC, restraint of property is a separate temporary restriction on transfer, disposal and/or use imposed by an investigating judge or court. It is available only for a statutory purpose: preserving physical evidence, special confiscation, confiscation as punishment, or securing a civil claim or recovery of unlawful benefit. When evidence preservation is asserted, the court considers whether the item meets Article 98, the legal basis, potential evidentiary use, proportionality and consequences. An investigator’s decision to classify a phone as physical evidence does not replace the judicial order.

Article 168(2) contains special rules for phones. Temporary seizure of a mobile terminal to examine its physical properties is permitted only where the device is expressly identified in the court order. As a rule, temporary seizure of electronic systems and mobile terminals is prohibited except in the listed situations: expert examination is necessary, the item resulted from or was used as a means or instrument of an offence, the holder restricts access, or logical protection must be overcome.

Article 236(7) describes items and documents outside the search warrant’s list, unless withdrawn from circulation, as temporarily seized property. The operative part of the warrant must therefore be read first: compare the precise or generic device description and the authorized purpose. Listing a phone in a search warrant does not turn that warrant into a restraint order. A separate order is needed for restraint, while application of temporary-seizure deadlines depends on the particular device’s procedural status.

Article 171(5) establishes two filing periods. The general rule is no later than the next working day after temporary seizure. Where property is temporarily seized during a search or inspection under an investigating judge’s order issued under Article 235, the petition must be filed within 48 hours after seizure; otherwise the property must be returned immediately.

Article 172 requires the petition to be considered no later than two days after it reaches the court. Article 173(6) separately requires an order concerning temporarily seized property no later than 72 hours after the petition reaches the court; otherwise the item must be returned. The triggering events differ: 48 hours runs from seizure to filing, while 72 hours runs from court receipt to the order.

Article 169 lists return grounds, including a prosecutor’s finding that seizure was unfounded, refusal of restraint, missed Articles 171 or 173 timing, cancellation of restraint and other express cases. Once restraint exists, Article 174 allows an owner, holder, suspect or defense counsel to seek full or partial cancellation by showing that the need has ended or the restraint was unjustified; the motion must be considered within three days of receipt.

Failure to return temporarily seized property may be challenged under Article 303(1)(1). In Decision No. 8-r(II)/2026 of 21 July 2026, the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court held unconstitutional the absence of appellate review where an investigating judge refuses such a non-return complaint. The relevant restrictions ceased to operate, in the aspect defined by the Decision, on that date. This concerns a complaint about non-return of temporarily seized property and does not automatically govern every Article 174 cancellation decision.

What follows from case law

In its 27 March 2019 judgment in case No. 202/1452/18, proceeding No. 14-559цс18, the Supreme Court’s Grand Chamber considered an owner who was not a participant in the criminal proceeding. It held that where restraint was imposed under the 2012 CPC, the owner must use CPC remedies, including a cancellation motion, rather than a civil claim. That conclusion selects the proper jurisdiction; it does not decide whether restraint of a particular phone is justified.

In its 20 May 2024 judgment in case No. 712/191/23, proceeding No. 51-3208кмо23, the Joint Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court distinguished the initial order imposing or refusing restraint from a later order deciding an Article 174 cancellation motion. It held that an order cancelling restraint or refusing cancellation is not separately appealable, while a refusal does not prevent a renewed motion. This must not be confused with Constitutional Court Decision No. 8-r(II)/2026 concerning refusal of a complaint about non-return of temporarily seized property.

In its 29 April 2026 judgment in case No. 357/9031/24, proceeding No. 51-234км26, the Third Chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court cancelled special confiscation of a phone. On the established facts, classification as physical evidence alone did not prove that the phone was used during or for the charged fraud, and the prosecutor had not supplied that proof. The judgment concerns special confiscation after trial; it does not automatically invalidate the initial taking or restraint of another device.

Step-by-step action plan

Common mistakes

Documents to give counsel

Provide every page of the search warrant, the protocol and attachments, inventory, available recording, restraint documents, physical-evidence decision, return correspondence, court receipts and your timeline. The legal assessment depends not only on document labels but on exact timing, the operative wording and the factual purpose for retaining the phone.