December 10, 2024
On December 10, 2024, at the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings, the Grand Chamber of the Court deliberated the case upon the constitutional petition of the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of Article 34.1.12 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”.
During the plenary session, the Court heard information from the Judge-rapporteur in the case Oksana Hryshchuk on the content of the constitutional petition and the grounds for initiating constitutional proceedings in the case.
According to her, the Supreme Court filed a petition with the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to verify the compliance of Article 34.1.12 of the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings” No. 1404-VIII dated June 2, 2016, as amended (hereinafter, the “Law”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.
According to the impugned provisions of the Law, the enforcement officer suspends enforcement actions in the event of “the inclusion of the single property complex of the debtor – a state or municipal enterprise, a block of shares (stakes) in the amount of more than 50 percent of the authorized capital of the debtor – a business entity in the list of small or large-scale privatization objects subject to privatization”.
The Judge-rapporteur pointed out that the author of the petition argued that the disputed provision of the Law contradicts Articles 8, 19.2, 55.1, 55.2, 129.2.9, 129-1.1, 129-1.2 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as it restricts the right to a fair trial.
From the content of the constitutional petition and the materials attached to it, it appears that the grounds for the Supreme Court’s constitutional petition to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine were the resolution of the panel of judges of the First Judicial Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court, which upheld the ruling of the court of first instance, according to which the resolurion of the Deputy Head of the State Enforcement Service to suspend enforcement actions in enforcement proceedings was declared unlawful and overturned, and obliged to restore the violated rights of the recoverer by resuming enforcement proceedings.
The Judge-rapporteur also informed that in order to ensure a full and comprehensive deliberation of the case, inquiries were sent to the bodies of state power and academic institutions with a request to express their positions on the issues raised in the constitutional petition of the Supreme Court.
The Court examined the case file in the public part of the plenary session and proceeded to the in-camera part for a decision.
The plenary session of the Grand Chamber was attended by the representative of the subject of the right to constitutional petition, First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Supreme Court Rasim Babanly, Permanent Representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine at the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Maksym Dyrdin, and Representative of the President of Ukraine at the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Serhii Dembovskyi.
The video recording of the public part of the plenary session is available at: “Archive of Video Broadcasts of Sessions”.
