“The judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Mikhail Mazur and Alexander Kryvenda published a separate opinion in the case of the loss of citizenship by oligarch Igor Kolomoisky. This is evidenced by the State Register of Judgments. The judges disagreed with the decision of most colleagues to refuse to satisfy the claim of Igor Kolomoisky on the cancellation of the Presidential Decree on the loss of Ukrainian citizenship. Separate opinion, dated”, – WRITE ON: ua.news
The judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Mikhail Mazur and Alexander Kryvenda published a separate opinion in the case of the loss of citizenship by oligarch Igor Kolomoisky.
This is evidenced by the State Register of Judgments.
The judges disagreed with the decision of most colleagues to refuse to satisfy the claim of Igor Kolomoisky on the cancellation of the Presidential Decree on the loss of Ukrainian citizenship. A separate opinion, dated September 11, 2025, emphasizes the problems of the retroactive effect of the law and the predictability of legal norms.
On September 11, 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court of April 2, 2025, refusing Kolomoisky in a lawsuit against the President of Ukraine.
The plaintiff appealed Decree No. 502/2022 of July 18, 2022, which was recognized as that he lost Ukrainian citizenship because of Israel’s citizenship.
Most of the judges argued that Kolomoisky voluntarily acquired foreign citizenship, had time to abandon him and that the evidence (in particular, a letter from the SBU with information from Israeli authorities) was sufficient.
At the same time, Judge Mazur and Kryveda claim that the acquisition of Kolomois’ citizenship of Israel took place in 1995, when Ukrainian legislation did not provide for loss of citizenship as a consequence.
“As of 1995, the Law of Ukraine” On Citizenship of Ukraine “in 1991 did not contain such a ground for loss of citizenship,” – they say, referring to Article 21 of the Law, which was limited to other grounds, such as entering into foreign authorities or submission of counterfeit documents.
A separate opinion emphasizes that only since 1997 (the new version of the law) and 2001 (new law) “Voluntary acquisition of citizenship of another state” became the basis for the loss of Ukrainian citizenship. Judges argue that “acquisition of citizenship” is a specific legal fact in time, not a continuing state, so the application of the law to the events of 1995 is a reverse effect prohibited by Art. 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
“Laws have no retroactive effect in time, except in cases of mitigation of responsibility,” they quote the constitution.
In addition, the Multiple Citizenship Law (No. 4502-IX of June 18, 2025, which would enter into force on January 16, 2026) was adopted, which indicates that the principle of a single citizenship in the Constitution does not prohibit multiple citizenship, but only excludes separate citizenship.
“The presence of another state’s citizenship does not violate the Constitution, but is assessed only by the law on citizenship,” they write.
Another key argument is the lack of transitional provisions in the 1997 and 2001 laws that would set a timeframe for exiting foreign citizenship for those who already had it.
“If the legislator meant the application to past cases, he should clearly define the terms or obligation,” the judges say.
For 25 years, the state has not applied this rule to Kolomoisky, despite the publicity of information about his dual citizenship, which makes the decision unpredictable and potentially violates Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“This circumstance is more likely to indicate that the state did not consider such a consequence for a long time,” Mazur and Kryveda emphasize.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine left the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court unchanged. Businessman Igor Kolomoisky was denied a claim to cancel President Vladimir Zelensky’s decree on the loss of Ukrainian citizenship.
Recall that in the Supreme Court the Office of the Prosecutor General acknowledged that the limitation period of bringing businessman Igor Kolomoisky had passed.
Earlier the Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court rejected The petition of Christina Remarskaya’s lawyer to attract businessman Igor Kolomoisky in the case of the fifth President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko as a third party without independent requirements.
On July 3, the Pechersk District Court of Kiev continued By August 27, a preventive measure for businessman Igor Kolomoisky. He is charged with a lawyer Sergey Karpenko’s custom murder.
