On February 16, 2026, the HACC Appeals Chamber ruled to overturn the investigating judge’s order on seizure of part of the Tymoshenko spouses’ property. 

In a new ruling, the court ordered seizure of Yuliia Tymoshenko’s deposit account. However, it refused to seize a one-half share in three cars and two garages belonging to her husband, Oleksandr Tymoshenko. The court also lifted the seizure of USD 6,300. 

In all other respects, the earlier ruling was left unchanged.

The defense argued that the seizure was unlawful, stating that the investigating judge had no authority to seize property belonging to Tymoshenko’s husband because he is not a suspect in these criminal proceedings. Defense counsel also stressed that the investigating judge should not have joined two motions seeking seizure of property.

Another defense lawyer repeated claims that searches involving Tymoshenko had been unlawful and that there were no legal grounds to seize her property. The defense asked the court to cancel the investigating judge’s ruling and issue a new one refusing seizure.

Tymoshenko stated that she had not violated any law, reported that she had applied to the ECHR over allegedly unlawful searches, and once again referred to a “return to Stalinist times.”

The prosecutor insisted that all procedural steps had been lawful and that suspicion against Tymoshenko was well grounded. He also asked the court to seize all property listed in the first-instance motion, arguing that the investigating judge had unreasonably refused to do so.

As reported earlier, the NABU and the SAPO served a notice of suspicion on Yuliia Tymoshenko, Head of the Batkivshchyna parliamentary faction in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. According to the investigation, the matter concerns an alleged offer to provide an improper benefit to Members of Parliament of Ukraine in order to influence the outcomes of parliamentary votes.