Work-Life Balance Has Been Granted Constitutional Status: What the Constitutional Court’s New Ruling Means for Business

For businesses, this means the need to review certain HR processes and assess personnel risks. Adherence to the approaches outlined by the Court becomes a key element of corporate responsibility and of maintaining the reputation of an employer that operates in accordance with the highest standards of legal culture and good governance.

The Constitutional Context of the Case

The case was considered following a constitutional petition filed by the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights regarding certain provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Organization of Labor Relations under Martial Law.”

The subject of constitutional review was the provisions that allowed an employer to grant unused days of annual basic leave in excess of 24 calendar days and certain types of additional leave without pay, as well as to extend the relevant restrictions even after the termination or lifting of martial law until the employee actually uses the carried-over leave days.

In considering the case, the Court proceeded from the premise that the right to rest, guaranteed by Article 45 of the Constitution of Ukraine, is not only derived from the right to work but also an independent constitutional right directly linked to human dignity, the protection of health, and the assurance of an appropriate balance between a person’s professional and personal life (work-life balance). The Court emphasized that this principle is the foundation of European labor standards.

At the same time, the Court did not question the possibility of temporarily restricting certain labor rights during wartime per se. The Court examined whether such restrictions would lead to the de facto abolition of the constitutional guarantees of the right to rest.

What the Constitutional Court Decided

The key conclusion was that the legislature cannot deprive certain vulnerable categories of employees of the guarantee of paid annual basic leave of the minimum duration explicitly established by law for such persons.

For this reason, the provision of the Law was deemed unconstitutional—not in general and not with respect to all employees—but specifically in the part where it failed to provide employees under the age of 18 and individuals with disabilities with paid annual basic leave of the full minimum duration established for them by law, namely:

• for employees under the age of 18—31 calendar days;
• for individuals with disabilities—26 or 30 calendar days, depending on the disability group.

The court reasoned that the right to paid annual leave is one of the key elements of the constitutional right to rest. Therefore, the duration of such leave established by law must be provided specifically as paid leave and not replaced by unpaid leave.

Why This Is Important for Businesses

For employers, this ruling sends an important practical message: martial law does not eliminate the obligation to comply with basic labor guarantees. The Court confirmed that the state may introduce special rules for the labor market during wartime; however, these rules must not deprive employees of the legally guaranteed minimum paid annual leave. In effect, the Constitutional Court has established a new standard for evaluating any restrictions on labor rights during martial law. 

This means that employers should evaluate personnel decisions not only in terms of formal compliance with the law but also through the lens of employees’ constitutional guarantees. This applies particularly to employees who enjoy enhanced social protection. 

Therefore, employers who hire employees under the age of 18 or individuals with disabilities should review their internal HR procedures and leave policies to ensure that such employees receive the full duration of their paid annual basic leave. Failure to comply with these guarantees may give rise to labor disputes, financial penalties, and the need to revise personnel decisions.

What Options for Employers Have Remained Unchanged

At the same time, the Constitutional Court did not call into question the very possibility of adapting labor regulations to the challenges of wartime. The Court confirmed that employers may continue to apply the mechanisms provided by law for granting certain types of additional leave without pay.

The Court explained that such leave constitutes an additional social guarantee rather than a component of an employee’s minimum constitutional right to rest. Therefore, the legislature may establish special rules for such leave, taking into account the needs of the economy and the specific circumstances of business operations during a period of martial law.

In effect, the Court defined the limits of permissible state intervention in the sphere of labor relations: employers may utilize the mechanisms for flexible workforce management provided for by law; however, such flexibility cannot be achieved at the expense of restricting fundamental labor guarantees, which constitute the essence of an employee’s constitutional right to rest.

A New Constitutional Standard: Work-Life Balance

Of particular note is that, for the first time at the level of constitutional jurisprudence, the Court has explicitly recognized the principle of work-life balance as a component of the right to rest.

This approach is in line with modern European standards and signals to employers that effective personnel management must take into account not only operational needs but also the interests of employees.

The principle of work-life balance is one of the key principles of European Union labor law. Its purpose is to help employees balance their professional responsibilities with their family life without harming their careers or business development. 

Today, the implementation of these approaches in EU countries is viewed not only as the fulfillment of social obligations by the state or the employer, but also as a key factor in business competitiveness, the ability to attract and retain highly qualified professionals, and the creation of sustainable and effective organizations in today’s labor market.

What Businesses Should Consider, or Key Takeaways for Employers

The Court’s decision has important practical implications for employers.

First, employers should review their internal leave policies and ensure that employees under the age of 18 and individuals with disabilities are provided with paid annual basic leave for the full minimum duration guaranteed by law.

Second, special attention should be paid to procedures for carrying over unused vacation days and the documentation thereof.

Third, the Decision once again confirms the need for a systematic legal audit of HR procedures, as the field of labor relations remains one of the most contentious areas of interaction between businesses and employees.

The Constitutional Court’s decision demonstrates that labor guarantees have long since transcended the realm of purely personnel or social issues and have become an important element of quality corporate governance.

In today’s environment, an employer’s approach to human resources management—especially during periods of heightened uncertainty and crisis—directly impacts its reputation, attractiveness to talent, and ability to maintain business stability.

That is why a systematic audit of HR processes, the timely updating of internal policies, and the proactive assessment of potential risks are of particular importance, as they enable businesses to maintain employee trust and strengthen their competitive position in the market.

Conclusions

Decision No. 3-r/2026 of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated May 19, 2026, has become an important benchmark for establishing modern standards for regulating labor relations under martial law.

The Constitutional Court recognized the admissibility of temporarily restricting certain labor rights during a period of martial law; however, such restrictions must comply with the principles of proportionality and legal certainty and may not infringe upon the essence of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Court confirmed that the right to rest is one of the fundamental constitutional guarantees that retains its legal value even in the face of extraordinary challenges to the state. This applies first and foremost to the right to paid annual leave for employees who enjoy enhanced legal protection.

Therefore, for businesses, this decision serves as a reminder that even in wartime, personnel decisions must comply not only with specific legislation but also with constitutional guarantees. Consequently, employers should review their internal policies and practices regarding the granting of leave to minimize the risk of labor disputes and ensure that employees’ rights are respected.

The article was written by:

Nataliia Matviichuk, Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice at GOLAW, Attorney at law

Tetiana Opanasiuk, Attorney at law at Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice at GOLAW