The court deliberated the case on the constitutionality of legislative provisions, which established the sequence and procedure for meeting the demands of the bank's creditors in the event of its liquidation

Версія для друку


On November 8, 2023, at the public part of the plenary session, in the form of written proceedings, the Second Senate deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Eduard Shestierikov regarding the conformity of the provisions of paragraphs 3, 4 of Article 52.1 of the Law of Ukraine “On the System of Guaranteeing Deposits of Individuals” No. 4452-VI dated February 23, 2012 as amended (hereinafter referred to as “the Law”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.

During the plenary session, the judge-rapporteur in the case, Volodymyr Moisyk, informed that the applicant disputes the provisions of the Law, according to which “funds received as a result of the liquidation and sale of the bank's property (assets), investment of temporarily free funds of the bank in government securities, are directed by the Fund to satisfaction of the demands of creditors, provided there are sufficient funds to ensure the liquidation procedure in the following order:

<...> 3) claims of the Fund arising in the cases specified by this Law;

4) claims of depositors – individuals (including individuals-entrepreneurs) who are not related parties of the bank, in the part that exceeds the amount paid by the Fund”.

The following circumstances of the case can be seen from the content of the constitutional complaint and the materials attached to it.

E. Shestierikov was a depositor of Public Joint Stock Company “Kyivska Rus Bank”. In July 2015, the liquidation procedure of this bank was started based on the decision of the executive directorate of the Individual Deposit Guarantee Fund (hereinafter referred to as “the Fund”) “On initiating liquidation procedure of PJSC “Kyivska Rus Bank” and the appointment of an authorised person of the Fund for the liquidation of the bank”.

Creditor claims of E. Shestierikov entered the fourth tier of satisfaction of creditors as the demands of depositors – individuals who are not related parties of the bank, in the part that exceeds the amount paid by the Fund.

The author of the complaint notes that since the Fund managed all the affairs of the Public Joint Stock Company “Kyivska Rus Bank”, he had the right to demand from the Fund the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by the bank.

Therefore, he appealed to the courts of the judiciary, which dismissed his claims.

According to the applicant, the contested provisions of the Law do not comply with the Constitution of Ukraine, since the sequence of satisfaction of creditors' claims established by them creates a situation “according to which the applicant is unlawfully deprived of ownership of the deposit”, and depositors are placed in unequal conditions with the Fund.

The judge-rapporteur informed that the Court had already received a number of responses from bodies of state power, scientific institutions and educational establishments on the issues raised in the applicant's constitutional complaint. He also notes that a case upon the constitutional petition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the constitutionality of the entire Law is pending before the Court.

In this case, the Court proceeded to the in-camera part of the plenary session for a decision.

The subject of the right to constitutional complaint Eduard Shestierikov, the representative of the subject of right to constitutional complaint, lawyer Vitalii Melnychuk attended the session.

The public part of the plenary session is available on the official website of the Court in the section “Archive of video broadcasts of sessions”.





Developed with the support of OSCE Project Co-ordinator in Ukraine
© 2024 Constitutional Court of Ukraine