Today, February 16, 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 citizen of Ukraine Ihor Hubko regarding the constitutionality of separate provision of Article 361.5.1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (hereinafter – the Code).
During the plenary session, the Judge-Rapporteur in the case Ihor Slidenko outlined the content of the constitutional complaint and informed about the grounds for initiating proceedings.
The judge noted that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine was addressed by the citizen of Ukraine I. Hubko with a request to declare the contested provision of the Code as unconstitutional. According to the applicant, the grounds for review of court decisions in connection with exceptional circumstances is unconstitutionality (constitutionality) of law, other legal act or its separate provision, applied (not applied) by the court in resolving the case, if the court decision has not yet been executed, established by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
In his constitutional complaint, I.Hubko notes that from 1 January 2015 until the adoption of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine the Decision in the case upon the constitutional complaints of Stepan Danyliuk and Oleksiy Lytvynenko regarding the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 86.20 of the Law on Ukraine „On Prosecutor’s Office“ of December 13, 2019 No.7-r(II)/2019 (hereinafter – the Decision), which restored the conditions and procedure for the recalculation of pensions for prosecutors, the pensioners of the prosecutor’s office had been deprived of „the constitutional rights (Articles 22.2 and 22.3 of the Basic Law of Ukraine) the impossibility of abolishing constitutional rights and freedoms and the inadmissibility of narrowing the content and scope of the existing rights and freedoms“.
The complainant emphasises that even after the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has rendered a decision, he is deprived of the opportunity to renew his violated right to recalculation of pensions and compensation for material and moral damage, given the discriminatory nature of the provisions of Article 361.5.1 of the Code, which contains the words: „if the court decision has not yet been executed“.
According to the complainant, the disputed provision in the wording „if the court decision has not yet been executed“ contradicts the provisions of Articles 1, 3.2, 6, 8.1, 8.2, 9.1, 21, 22.2, 22.3, 24.1, 55.1, 55.2, 55.4, 56, 64, 129.1, 151-1 and 152.3 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as it violates his right to compensation for moral and material damage, imposed by the law, which is declared unconstitutional, discriminates against certain categories of pensioners in terms of their possible exercise of this right, and violates the complainant’s right to effective judicial protection.
Having examined the examination of the case in the public part of the plenary session, the Second Senate proceeded to the in-camera part for decision.
The public part of the plenary session is available on the Court’s official website under the heading „Archive of video broadcasts of the sessions“.