June 14, 2023
On June 14, 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 the Private Enterprise “General Construction Management” regarding the compliance of Article 321.2.2, Article 321.3 of the Economic Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.
During the plenary session, the judge-rapporteur in the case, Volodymyr Moysyk, informed that the company disputes the provisions of Article 321 of the Code, according to which an application for review of a court decision in newly discovered or exceptional circumstances can be submitted on the grounds specified, in particular, in Article 320.3.2 of the Code (determination by an international judicial institution, the jurisdiction of which is recognised by Ukraine, violation of international commitments by Ukraine during the decision of the case by the courts), - no later than ten years from the day such a court decision becomes legally binding (paragraph 2 of part 2); the specified term cannot be renewed (part 3).
The company claims that in the case of application of the contested provisions of the Code, “a person is actually deprived of the opportunity to appeal to the Supreme Court for review of court decisions in his case, if the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which established a violation of the rights of such a person, was delivered after the expiration of a ten-year period from the date of entry into legal force of the decisions of the domestic court in the case, since this term is not subject to renewal”.
The subject of the appeal notes that the disputed provisions of the Code do not correspond to a number of articles of the Constitution of Ukraine, and their application leads to the narrowing of the right to judicial protection, violation of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of fair trial as constituent parts of the principle of the rule of law.
The judge-rapporteur informed that he had sent requests to scientific and educational institutions, state authorities, in particular, the President of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to deliver their positions on the issues raised in the constitutional complaint.
In this case, the Court proceeded to the in-camera part of the plenary session for a decision.
The representative of the subject of the right to a constitutional complaint, lawyer Mykhailo Tarakhkalo, 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”.
