On September 11, 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court adopted a final decision in the high-profile case No. 990/320/23, leaving in force the presidential decree of July 18, 2022 on the loss of Ukrainian citizenship by Ihor Kolomoisky. This was reported by the businessman's lawyer Oleksandr Lysak.
According to the case materials, Ihor Kolomoisky, while still a citizen of Ukraine, obtained Israeli citizenship back in 1995. At that time, Ukrainian legislation did not provide for the automatic loss of Ukrainian citizenship in the event of acquiring citizenship of another state.
However, in 2022, the President of Ukraine signed Decree No. 502/2022, which recognized Kolomoisky as having lost Ukrainian citizenship. The businessman appealed this document to the Cassation Administrative Court, which considered the case as part of the Supreme Court. As lawyer Lysak noted, the essence of the case was a legal conflict concerning the effect of laws in time. He recalled that the relevant amendments to the Law “On Citizenship of Ukraine”, which provide for the loss of citizenship due to the acquisition of another, were made only in 1997 and 2001 — that is, after Kolomoisky received Israeli citizenship.
"In accordance with Article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the law is not retroactive. The application of norms adopted after 1995 to the events of that time is a violation of the principle of irreversibility of the law," the lawyer emphasized.
Of particular note is the separate opinion of two judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court — Mykola Mazur and Oleh Kryvenda. In their document, they directly pointed out the inadmissibility of retrospective application of legislation and noted that the court's decision violates constitutional guarantees. According to the defense, Kolomoisky's case is important not only for the businessman himself. It is about creating a precedent that may affect thousands of Ukrainians who are or have been in similar legal conditions — in particular, those who have foreign citizenship obtained before the changes in the legislation.
In this context, Lysak drew attention to the adoption of a new law on multiple citizenship, which, although it does not allow for the free possession of several passports, does not provide for the automatic loss of Ukrainian citizenship simply because of the possession of another. In his opinion, the case of Ihor Kolomoisky demonstrates the need to review outdated norms and adapt the legislation to modern realities.
