Judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Oleksandr Petryshyn and Galyna Yurovska joined the discussion of issues concerning administrative disputes related to the protection of citizens’ rights under martial law in Ukraine during the XI National Judicial Forum held on November 15, 2024.
The event brought together leading lawyers, judges, representatives of the bodies of state power, national and international experts to discuss important issues facing our state today.
Galyna Yurovska, the Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, welcomed the participants and stressed the important role of justice in maintaining public order, stability and ensuring the protection of citizens’ rights.
She emphasised the leading role of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in ensuring strict observance of the Constitution of Ukraine and the fundamental values and principles embodied therein. The Judge noted that under martial law, the constitutional review body continues to deliberate and deliver decisions on a wide range of issues, including ensuring the rights of individuals to judicial protection in administrative disputes.
Galyna Yurovska stressed that despite the martial law, access to justice for citizens must be guaranteed, while ensuring security for all participants in the trial and using the latest technologies.
The Judge noted that administrative courts have a great responsibility to become the key to protecting human rights in today’s conditions. According to her, administrative courts must respond to possible new forms of violations of human rights related to the illegal alienation of property, social protection of victims, ensuring the rights to compensation for damages, and much more.
During the event, Galyna Yurovska also delivered a presentation on “Legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on ensuring the rights of individuals to judicial protection in administrative disputes during martial law”. She focused on the peculiarities of the administration of justice under martial law, spoke about the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine set out in its decisions on the equality of the parties during judicial review over the execution of a court decision, on personal data in a court decision and on the binding nature of a court decision.
In his speech at the XI National Judicial Forum, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Oleksandr Petryshyn focused on the characteristics of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in cases on compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) and official interpretation of the provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences.
He emphasised that the Court delivered 9 decisions in cases concerning the provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences, including 4 decisions in cases on compliance of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences with the Constitution of Ukraine and 5 decisions in cases on official interpretation of its provisions.
The Judge underscored that these decisions were delivered on 2 constitutional petitions, including those of 50 People’s Deputies of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, and on 3 constitutional complaints. In three judgments, namely, No. 10-rp/2011 dated October 11, 2011, No. 10-r/2018 dated November 23, 2018, and No. 8-r(I)/2022 dated October 12, 2022, the Court declared the disputed provisions (in whole or in part) to be inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine. In its Decision No. 5-r(ІІ)/2021 dated July 21, 2021, the Court declared the impugned provisions constitutional.
Oleksandr Petryshyn informed the forum participants about the provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences that were subject to constitutional review in these cases. These were individual provisions of Article 263; provisions of of Articles 294.1, 326, provision of Article 294.10; individual provision of Article 204-3.1.2; provisions of Article 268.1; provisions of Article 141.1 of the Code of Administrative Offences.
According to him, the decisions in these cases mostly concerned procedural issues: the terms of administrative detention; the time of entry into force of court resolutions on the application of administrative penalties, in particular administrative arrest; the lack of alternative to the use of confiscation of goods as a sanction in case of violation of the procedure for moving goods to or from the area of the anti-terrorist operation; the absence of the right to cassation appeal in certain categories of cases; the right to choose a defense; bringing a person to administrative liability in the field of ensuring road safety; the possibility of bringing legal entities to administrative liability; the procedure for appealing a judge’s resolution in cases of administrative offenses; the place of drawing up a protocol on an administrative offense.
Summing up his speech, the Judge emphasised that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, based on the results of its constitutional review, ensured the protection of the human right to liberty and inviolability, the right to judicial protection, property rights, and the protection of a person from unlawful accusations.
