18 July, 2024
On 17 July 2024, the Second Senate deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Vasyl Sapryka in the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings.
During the plenary session, the judge-rapporteur in the case, Oleh Pervomaiskyi, informed that the complainant had filed a petition with the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to verify the compliance of Articles 1, 20.2 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Legal Regime of Martial Law” No. 389-VIII dated 12 May 2015 and Article 20.7.1, paragraph 22.2.3 of Section VI “Final and Transitional Provisions’ of the Budget Code of Ukraine (hereinafter, “the Code”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.
The judge noted that the Third Board of Judges of the Second Senate, by its ruling dated 2 May 2024, initiated constitutional proceedings in part regarding the constitutionality of Article 20.7.1, paragraph 22.2.3 of Section VI “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Code, and dismissed the other part.
According to Article 20.7.1 of the Code, “under budget programmes, the implementation of measures under which requires a regulatory and legal definition of the mechanism for the application of budget funds, the main administrators of state budget funds develop draft procedures for the application of state budget funds (including budget programmes first defined by the law on the State Budget of Ukraine) and ensure their approval within 30 days from the date of entry into force of the law on the State Budget of Ukraine. By a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (in the form of a protocol decision), the procedures for the application of state budget funds are approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine or the main spending unit of the state budget in agreement with the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine. The Verkhovna Rada Committee on Budget shall be informed of the approval of such procedures.”
Paragraph 22.2.3 of Section VI “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Code establishes that under martial law or for the implementation of general mobilisation measures in accordance with the law, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine may decide “on the procedure for the application and amount of state social standards and guarantees, based on the available financial resources of the state and local budgets and funds of compulsory state social and pension insurance”.
The judge-rapporteur noted that the content of the constitutional complaint and the materials attached to it showed the following.
Vasyl Sapryka is a person with a disability group II as a result of the war, who is entitled to receive an annual lump sum payment by 5 May. In 2022, he received this assistance in an amount less than that established in Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Status of War Veterans, Guarantees of Their Social Protection”. In response to his appeal to the Main Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast (hereinafter, “the Department”) regarding the payment of a lump sum financial assistance by 5 May 2022 in the amount of 8 minimum retirement pensions, the Department informed him by letter that there were no legal grounds for the payment of financial assistance in the specified amount.
Consequently, Vasyl Sapryka filed a lawsuit in which he sought to declare unlawful the actions of the Office in refusing to accrue and pay him an annual lump sum and to oblige the Office to accrue and pay him an unpaid financial assistance in the amount of UAH 11,566.
The court of first instance partially satisfied the claims, in particular, ordered the Office to accrue and pay the underpaid financial assistance in the amount of the minimum old-age pension, taking into account the previously paid amount of assistance.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the decision of the court of first instance and issued a new ruling dismissing Saprytsia's claims. The Supreme Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings against the applicant.
According to the author of the petition, as a result of the application by the courts of the disputed orders, the right to social protection guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine (Article 17.5), the right to own and dispose of one's property (Articles 41.1 and 41.4) were violated.
The judge-rapporteur informed that he had sent letters of inquiry, in particular, to the President of Ukraine, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Prime Minister of Ukraine and a number of academic and other institutions to express their positions on the issues raised in the constitutional complaint.
After examining the case file in the public part of the plenary session, the Second Senate proceeded to the in-camera part to deliver its decision.
The public part of the plenary session is available on the official website of the Court at: https://ccu.gov.ua/kategoriya/2024.
