200 damaged facilities and 60 shelters—what is known about the safety of the vessels
During the full-scale war in Ukraine, 200 buildings housing courts, judicial bodies, and institutions have been damaged. At the same time, the State Judicial Administration reports having 60 protective structures on its records, while the Judicial Security Service does not keep track of damaged buildings, even though it is responsible for court security. Let’s take a closer look at what is known about court security, shelters, and the division of responsibilities between the two agencies.
The full-scale war has made Ukrainian courts among the facilities that also require special attention from a security standpoint. Russian strikes have damaged the buildings of courts, judicial bodies, and other institutions within the justice system. Some of the facilities have suffered serious damage, and some buildings have been completely destroyed.
According to the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, as of February 24, 2022, 200 court buildings, government agencies, and other institutions within the justice system had been damaged as a result of Russian aggression. Of these, 21 buildings were completely destroyed and looted. In 20 cases, these were specifically court buildings.
The State Judicial Administration provided these figures in response to a request from the “Judicial and Legal Gazette.” At the same time, another question remains: to what extent are the courts protected from new attacks, and do the people inside have the ability to quickly move to a safe place during an air raid alert?
What Is Known About Shelters
According to the State Judicial Administration, as of January 1, 2026, there were 60 civil defense shelters on its records. Among them are four basic shelters, nine bomb shelters, and 47 anti-radiation shelters.
However, the figure 60 itself does not mean that only 60 courts have access to shelters. The State Administration of Courts’ response does not mention all possible structures owned by other entities that court employees and visitors may use. Therefore, based on the data provided, it is impossible to determine exactly how many courts currently have shelters directly within their buildings, how many use nearby facilities, and how many face problems accessing them.
This remains one of the key issues. After all, during an air raid alert, there may be more than just judges and court staff present in the courthouse. There may be attorneys, prosecutors, parties to cases, witnesses, and ordinary visitors. And for all of them, there must be a clear protocol for action in the event of a missile or drone attack.
Who Is Responsible for Court Security
The Judicial Security Service is responsible for the security of courts. Its powers are defined by the Law of Ukraine “On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges.” Among the main tasks of the Judicial Security Service are maintaining public order in courts, securing court premises, ensuring the safety of judges and participants in court proceedings, and safeguarding the integrity of court buildings and property. The Service is under the control of the State Judicial Administration and is accountable to the High Council of Justice.
However, when journalists asked the SSO to report on the consequences of the Russian strikes, the service replied that keeping track of damaged or destroyed buildings within the justice system does not fall within its jurisdiction. In other words, protecting the courts and keeping track of damage to them are distinct functions. At the same time, this very response raises questions about how information on security risks to courts is generally collected and analyzed within the system.
The Judicial Security Service Did Not Disclose Some Information
In response to a request regarding the organization of court security, the Judicial Security Service did not provide all the information. The JSS explained that some of the information cannot be disclosed due to martial law and risks to national security. In particular, the service stated that disclosing aggregated information about the organization of court security, protected individuals, high-profile court hearings, and mass events could pose a threat to Ukraine’s national security.
This means that the public cannot get a complete picture of exactly how security is organized for specific facilities. And this is understandable from a security standpoint: detailed data on the locations of security posts, patrol routes, or other specifics of the service’s operations during wartime may indeed constitute sensitive information. However, the question remains as to which specific security indicators can be made public without jeopardizing the work of the Special Security Service (SSO) and who should independently assess the courts’ readiness for actual attacks.
The State Judicial Administration Oversees the Work of the Special Security Service
In its response, the State Judicial Administration noted that throughout 2025, it monitored the SSO’s activities on a monthly basis regarding staffing levels and the security status of court facilities. At the same time, the SJA explicitly stated that it did not issue any specific instructions to the Judicial Security Service regarding security measures. In other words, there is a division of authority within the system: the Judicial Security Service directly provides security, while the SJA has its own management and oversight functions.
The problem arises when it is not simply a matter of guarding the court entrance, but of comprehensive security during missile and drone attacks. In such cases, it is necessary to consider shelter, evacuation of people, emergency alerts, operations during an emergency, protection of property, and the ability to continue court operations after the building has been damaged.
Response plans do exist
That said, it would be incorrect to claim that the system lacks any rules for handling emergencies. Back in 2019, the State Judicial Administration approved methodological recommendations on safety during emergencies and a model plan for ensuring the court’s continuous operation. These documents provided, in particular, for evacuation plans, procedures for alerting judges and court staff, and the designation of individuals responsible for safety.
After the outbreak of full-scale war, these rules were supplemented. By Order No. 524 of the State Judicial Administration dated November 13, 2023, courts were required to develop individual emergency response plans. In these plans, responsibility is assigned, in particular, to the heads of court administrative offices and units of the Judicial Security Service.
The use of Judicial Security Service (JSS) vehicles for evacuation is also provided for. In July 2026, the State Judicial Administration approved another document—the Emergency Response Plan for Its Own Facilities. In other words, a response system exists on paper. There are rules, designated responsible individuals, and defined procedures. However, the mere existence of a plan does not answer the question of how well it works in a real-life situation.
What Happens During an Attack
This is where the most difficult question arises. If an air raid alert is declared at the courthouse, employees and visitors must know where to go. If the building is damaged, it must be clear who assesses its condition, who organizes the evacuation, and who determines the next steps.
In the event of a repeat attack, it is also important to know whether a shelter is available, whether it can accommodate everyone in the courthouse at once, and whether it can be reached safely. The responses provided by the State Judicial Administration (DSA) and the State Security Service (SSO) do not paint a complete picture regarding each of these issues.
That is precisely why the issue of court security cannot be reduced solely to whether there is a security guard or a metal detector near the building. It involves a much broader system—ranging from physical security and access control to civil defense, evacuation, and response measures following a missile strike.
We had to pay for the documents
There is also a separate aspect to this story related to access to information. The editorial staff of the “Judicial and Legal Gazette” requested documents from the State Judicial Administration regarding the organization of court security. The administration reported that the volume of materials exceeded 10 pages. By law, the first 10 pages of copies are provided free of charge, while for larger volumes, the actual costs of copying may be charged.
As a result, the State Judicial Administration issued an invoice for 349.65 UAH for the copies of the additional 105 pages. At the same time, the journalists were offered an alternative: to review the documents free of charge directly at the DSA’s offices, take notes, photograph the documents, or copy them using their own equipment.
Why This Matters
The justice system continues to function even during a full-scale war. People are in the courts every day, hearings are held, and judges and court staff are working. At the same time, Russian attacks have repeatedly damaged facilities of the justice system. Therefore, the issue of security here is not limited to guarding the building.
It is essential to understand whether there is accessible shelter, who is responsible for evacuation, how staff respond during an alarm, who assesses damage after an attack, and how quickly the court can resume operations. Official responses from the State Judicial Administration (SJA) and the Special Operations Service (SSO) indicate that some of these functions are divided among different agencies. The SJA maintains a registry of damaged facilities and performs management and oversight functions, while the SSO is directly responsible for the security of the courts.
At the same time, some information about the SSO’s operations is not disclosed due to security restrictions. So the main question remains a practical one: Can a person who finds themselves in a Ukrainian court during a Russian attack be confident that they have a safe place to go, that someone will protect them, and that they know what to do next? It is the answer to this question that reveals the true state of security in the judicial system far better than the number of orders and instructions.
