On March 15, at the public part of the plenary session, in the form of written proceedings, the Second Senate deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaints of Mykola Starychenko and Serhii Harlyka regarding the compliance of paragraph 3 of clause 3 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine concerning Priority Measures to Reform the Bodies of the Prosecution Office” dated September 19, 2019 No. 113-IX (hereinafter referred to as the “Law No. 113”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.
Judges-rapporteurs in this case are Serhiy Holovaty and Halyna Yurovska.
During the plenary session, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Halyna Yurovska explained the content of the constitutional complaints and the substantiation of the applicants.
She noted that Mykola Starychenko appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine with a request to examine compliance of the provisions of paragraph 3 of clause 3 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law No. 113 regarding the remuneration of employees of prosecution offices in accordance with the resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, with Article 131-1.2 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
At the same time, Serhii Harlyka requests the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to declare clause 3 of paragraph 3 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law No. 113 as inconsistent with Article 22.2, Article 22.3, Article 41.1, Article 41.4, Article 43.4, and Article 48, Article 64.1 of the Basic Law of Ukraine.
According to the provisions of paragraph 3 of clause 3 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law No. 113 “prosecutors and heads of regional, local and military prosecution offices, prosecutors and heads of structural subdivisions of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine shall preserve the corresponding legal status that they had before the entry into force of this law, when performing the functions of the prosecution office until the day of their release or transfer to the Office of the Prosecutor General, the regional prosecution office, the district prosecution office. For the specified period, the remuneration of employees of the Office of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, regional prosecution offices, local prosecution offices, and military prosecution offices is carried out in accordance with the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which establishes the remuneration of employees of prosecution offices.”
The complainants note, in particular, that “according to Article 81.1 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecution Office” dated October 14, 2014 No. 1697-VII, the prosecutor's salary is regulated by this Law and cannot be determined by other normative legal acts.” At the same time, they point out that paragraph 3 of clause 3 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law No. 113 applies different approaches to the remuneration of prosecutors depending on passing or not passing certification.
According to the applicants, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, when delegating its powers to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, violated the constitutional principle of separation of state power and created a threat to the independence of prosecutors.
During the plenary session, the Second Senate examined the materials of the case in the public part of the plenary session and proceeded to the in-camera part for a decision.
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”.
