On April 5, 2023 the judges of the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, at the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings, deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Artur Boiarov regarding the conformity of Article 380.5.1 of the Customs Code of Ukraine with the Constitution of Ukraine.
The judge-reporter in the case, Judge of the Court Vasyl Lemak noted during the plenary session that Artur Boiarov appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to declare Article 380.5.1 of the Customs Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) as inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine.
According to the contested provisions, “temporarily imported vehicles for personal use may be used in the customs territory of Ukraine exclusively by citizens who imported the said vehicles into Ukraine for their personal needs.”
As can be seen from the case materials, the applicant appealed to the court against the customs, in which he asked to declare its inaction regarding the failure to grant a permit for the transfer of the rights to use the customs regime of temporary import in respect of a vehicle for personal use to be unlawful, and to oblige the customs to grant a permit for the transfer of the right to use the customs temporary importation regime for a vehicle for personal use from a non-resident to an applicant who is also a non-resident. Courts of first instance and appeal rejected the claim. The Supreme Court partially satisfied the applicant's cassation appeal.
In pursuance with the subject of the right to a constitutional complaint, Article 380.5.1 of the Code does not correspond to Article 41.1, Article 57.1 of the Constitution of Ukraine, since “due to the existence of this norm and its lack of quality”, he is deprived of the opportunity to use a vehicle imported into the customs territory of Ukraine, which belongs to him by right of ownership.
The judge-rapporteur also pointed out that in order to ensure a full and objective deliberation, he sent requests to state authorities, a number of institutions of higher education, scientific establishments and special advisers of the Court to deliver their opinions on the issues raised in the constitutional complaint.
The Court 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 Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the same day, at the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings, deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of the “Galician Trade Company” LLC regarding the compliance of the provisions of Article 19.6.1, Article 389.3.2 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.
Vasyl Lemak, the judge-reporter in this case, the judge of the Court, noted that the “Galician Trade Company” LLC (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to examine the conformity of the contested provisions of the Code with the Constitution of Ukraine.
According to Article 19.6 of the Code, “for the purposes of the Code, minor cases are cases in which the value of the claim does not exceed one hundred of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons” (paragraph 1).
In accordance with Article 389.3 of the Code, “court decisions in minor cases and in cases with a claim price not exceeding two hundred and fifty amounts of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons are not subject to cassation appeal, except in cases where: the cassation appeal concerns a question of law which is of fundamental importance for the formation of a unified law enforcement practice; a person who files a cassation appeal, in accordance with this Code, is deprived of the opportunity to refute the circumstances established by the contested court decision, when considering another case; the case is of significant public interest or is of exceptional importance for the party to the case who files a cassation appeal; the court of first instance mistakenly classified the case as insignificant” (paragraph 2).
The Company claims that the disputed provisions of the Code introduce discrimination based on the price of the claim and other features, which violates the constitutional right to equal access to justice.
As can be seen from the case materials, the Supreme Court refused the applicant to initiate cassation proceedings due to the insignificance of the case. In the opinion of the Company, because of the application by the Supreme Court in the final court decision of the specified provisions of the Code, its right to cassation appeal of court decisions was violated.
During the plenary session, the judge-rapporteur informed that he sent inquiries to state authorities, a number of institutions of higher education, scientific establishments and special advisers of the Court to deliver opinions on the issues raised in the constitutional complaint.
After examining the case materials in the public part of the plenary session, the Court proceeded to the in-camera part for a decision.
The Permanent Representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Maksym Dyrdin attended the plenary sessions.
Public parts of plenary sessions are available on the official website of the Court in the section “Archive of Video Broadcasts of Sessions”.
