This article analyses the State’s obligation to compensate for damages as stipulated in part three of Article 152 of the Constitution of Ukraine, addressing not only the primacy of safeguarding human rights and freedoms, as typically emphasised by Ukrainian legal scholars, but also the legal essence of such compensation in relation to its constitutional context and its interaction with other constitutional principles, particularly the doctrine of separation of powers.

The article aims to conduct a thorough examination of the nuances of State compensation for damages resulting from the unconstitutionality of an act, considering the constitutional principles of the rule of law, human rights and freedoms, State accountability to individuals, and the separation of powers.

The article’s author examines the constitutional framework governing state compensation for harm inflicted on individuals by unconstitutional actions, primarily referencing the Constitution of Ukraine and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Additionally, the author compares this compensation with analogous legal principles in the United States and Canada, specifically regarding the doctrines of constitutional tort, absolute immunity and limited immunity.

Compensation for damages from the State, as stipulated in part three of Article 152 of the Constitution of Ukraine, represents a distinctive mechanism for safeguarding constitutional rights and freedoms. The specifics of its implementation must be established by legislators, informed by the objectives, particulars, and results of constitutional oversight.

The author ultimately asserts that the State’s compensation mechanism for damages resulting from unconstitutional acts should be based on constitutional principles, including the rule of law, respect for human rights and freedoms, State accountability to individuals, and the separation of powers, all of which interact harmoniously to ensure constitutional stability. Balancing constitutional values necessitates legislative regulation regarding state compensation for damages as stipulated in part three of Article 152 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Any alternative approach risks distortion and infringement of these values, as it is the legislator’s duty to establish a foundation for maintaining equilibrium between the state’s obligations to individuals, the effective safeguarding of constitutional rights and freedoms, and the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Zastosuvannia sudamy Konstytutsii Ukrainy: doktryna i praktyka (Yezerov A, Terletskyi D (upor), VAITE 2022) (in Ukrainian).Journal articles

2. Chapman N S, ‘Fair Notice, the Rule of Law, and Reforming Qualified Immunity’ [2023] 75 Fla. L. Rev. 9–10.

3. Fallon R H, ‘Bidding Farewell to Constitutional Torts’ [2019] 107 California Law Review 964–965.

4. Noah S-D, ‘The Constitutional Tort System’ [2021] 96(2)6 Indiana Law Journal 571.

5. Afanasieva M, ‘Vidshkoduvannia shkody, zavdanoi nekonstytutsiinymy aktamy: teoriia, sudova praktyka ta perspektyvne zakonodavstvo’ [2022] 59 Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu 18–23 (in Ukrainian).

6. Barabash Yu, ‘Zasib zakhystu prava vs yurydychna vyznachenist’ yak dylema vitchyznianoi ofitsiinoi konstytutsiinoi doktryny v konteksti funktsionuvannia instytutu indyvidualnoi skarhy’ [2020] 4 Ukrainskyi chasopys konstytutsiinoho prava 47–60 (in Ukrainian).

7. Beschastnyi V, Zaporozhets V, ‘Instytut konstytutsiinoi skarhy v Ukraini: suchasnyi stan ta perspektyvy rozvytku’ [2020] 3 (72) Pravovyi chasopys Donbasu 9–20 (in Ukrainian).

8. Havrylenko O, Frantsuz-Iakovets T, ‘Vidshkoduvannia shkody, zavdanoi nekonstytutsiinym normatyvno-pravovym aktom, na pidstavi st. 1175 TsK Ukrainy: analiz sudovoi praktyky’ [2023] 2(8) Legal Bulletin 57–64 (in Ukrainian).

9. Horodovenko V, ‘Stanovlennia kontseptsii zakonodavchoho upushchennia (legislative omission) u praktytsi Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy v konteksti porivnialnoho pravoznavstva’ [2024] 1 Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy 78–102 (in Ukrainian).

10. Kliuchkovskyi Yu, ‘Problemy zakhystu prava, porushenoho zastosuvanniam nekonstytutsiinoho zakonu’ [2024] 4 Ukrainskyi chasopys konstytutsiinoho prava 3–15 (in Ukrainian).

11. Yezerov A, ‘Nekonstytutsiinist zakonu yak pidstava dlia perehliadu sudovykh rishen za vykliuchnymy obstavynamy v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi’ [2020] 3 Visnyk Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy 112-124 (in Ukrainian). Conference papers

12. Koziubra M, ‘Vidshkoduvannia derzhavoiu shkody, zavdanoi fizychnym abo yurydychnym osobam aktamy i diiamy, shcho vyznani nekonstytutsiinymy: kontseptualno-metodolohichni pidkhody’, Chy ye diievym pravo liudyny bez prava na yoho efektyvnyi zakhyst: pytannia vidshkoduvannia za porushene pravo vnaslidok vyznannia akta nekonstytutsiinym: zb. materialiv Mizhnar. seminaru-praktykumu (Kyiv, 22 lystopada 2024 r.) (Pravo 2025) 37–41 (in Ukrainian).

13. Vodiannikov O, ‘Nekonstytutsiini akty ta vidpovidalnist derzhavy: mizh normamy konstytutsii ta sudovoiu praktykoiu. pidkhody’, Chy ye diievym pravo liudyny bez prava na yoho efektyvnyi zakhyst: pytannia vidshkoduvannia za porushene pravo vnaslidok vyznannia akta nekonstytutsiinym: zb. materialiv Mizhnar. seminaru-praktykumu (Kyiv, 22 lystopada 2024 r.) (Pravo 2025) 198–220 (in Ukrainian). Newspaper articles

14. Sun K, ‘The Supreme Court’s latest unprincipled assault on parliamentary democracy’ (National Post, Jul 19, 2024) (accessed 03.09. 2025).

15. Bilak M, ‘Vyznannia zakonu nekonstytutsiinym: yak ponovyty osobu v pravakh i ne destabilizuvaty pravovyi poriadok u derzhavi’ (Yurydychna praktyka 13 serpnia 2020) (accessed 10.09.2025) (in Ukrainian). Websites

16. Honickman A, ‘The Supreme Court is trying to radically rewrite Canada’s constitutional order’ (31 July 2024) (accessed 25.09. 2025).