The lawyer explained why the judges of the Supreme Court noted the violation of constitutional rights in the deprivation of Kolomoisky (a citizen of Israel) of Ukrainian citizenship.

Supreme Court Decision on Kolomoisky’s Case

On September 11, 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine concluded the proceedings on the citizenship case of Ihor Kolomoisky, upholding the decree of the President of Ukraine dated July 18, 2022, recognizing him as “having lost citizenship.” This decision revealed deep legal issues, highlighting a lack of consensus even among the highest judicial authorities.

Kolomoisky’s lawyer, Oleksandr Lysak, writes www.unian.net on September 29, 2025, noted that this case is much more complex than it might seem at first glance. It is important to consider the key arguments supported by some Supreme Court judges, which point to serious legal conflicts.

Chronology of Events

According to Lysak, understanding the situation requires tracing the chronology. In 1995, Ihor Kolomoisky obtained Israeli citizenship. In July 2022, the President of Ukraine issued a decree that led to the loss of Ukrainian citizenship. Disagreeing, Kolomoisky appealed the decision in the Cassation Administrative Court.

Principle of Irreversibility of Law

The essence of the legal discussion focuses on the irreversibility of the law over time, as declared in Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine. As Lysak emphasized, the very fact of obtaining Israeli citizenship is important, as at the time of its acquisition, Ukrainian legislation did not provide for the loss of citizenship as a result of this step.

Changes in legislation regarding the loss of citizenship were introduced only in 1997 and 2001, essentially after Kolomoisky’s action that led to obtaining citizenship of another state.

Legal Conflict

Lysak emphasized that a legal conflict arose: is it possible to apply the norms of 2001 to an action that took place in 1995? This creates a situation where a law adopted later attempts to affect past events, which is a serious violation of legal principles.

Judges’ Opinion

The lawyer drew attention to the opinion of the judges who noted that the retrospective application of the law is strictly inadmissible, as it violates constitutional guarantees. This is not just a formality but a signal of the contentious legal basis of the decision.

Impact on the Future

Lysak also points out that this case affects not only Kolomoisky. It may set a precedent that will affect many Ukrainians who hold citizenship of other countries. Such a discussion is especially relevant in the context of adopted legislative initiatives on multiple citizenship.

In the discussion process, it is important to understand that legislation must meet modern realities and requirements, especially in light of new laws. Kolomoisky’s case underscores the need to revise outdated approaches, ensuring the legal interests of citizens in view of the changing reality.