November 12, 2025

On November 5, 2025, during the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings, the Second Senate deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Hryhorii Sivukhin.

During the plenary session, the Judge-Rapporteur in the case, Oleksandr Vodiannikov, presented the content of the constitutional complaint and the applicant's arguments.

The judge noted that Hryhorii Sivukhin had appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to verify the compliance of Article 119.3 of the Labour Code of Ukraine (hereinafter, the “Code”) with Article 130.2 of the Constitution of Ukraine,  as well as to review the aforementioned article of the Code in conjunction with Article 130 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 135 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”.

According to Article 119.3 of the Code, “employees sent for basic military service, called up for military service as officers, called up for military service during mobilization, for a special period, military service as reservists during a special period, or accepted for military service under contract [...] during a special period for a term until its expiration or until the date of actual dismissal, their place of work and position at the enterprise, institution, or organization [...] shall be preserved. Such employees shall be paid monetary compensation from the State Budget of Ukraine in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Social and Legal Protection of Servicemen and Members of Their Families.”

The following can be inferred from the content of the constitutional complaint and the materials attached to it.

The applicant holds the position of judge of the Kaniv City District Court of Cherkasy Region and, in connection with his enlistment in the Territorial Defense Forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and volunteer formations of territorial communities, has been released from work for the period of military service with his job, position, and average earnings retained.

Since July 19, 2022, as a result of amendments to Article 119.3 of the Code (the words “job, position, and average earnings are retained” were replaced with the words “job and position are retained”), the applicant has not been paid his judicial remuneration.

He therefore filed an administrative lawsuit against the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, requesting, in particular, the recovery of unpaid judicial remuneration for October 2023.

The Cherkasy District Administrative Court upheld this claim. At the same time, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the court of first instance and issued a new court decision denying his claim. The Supreme Court refused to open cassation proceedings for the applicant.

The author of the petition claims that as a result of the courts' application of Article 119.3 of the Code, his right to receive judicial remuneration “as a judge who served in the mobilization without signing a contract during the war of the Russian Federation against Ukraine,” guaranteed by Article 130.2 of the Constitution of Ukraine, was violated as there was a restriction of the judge's right to receive judicial remuneration and a restriction of the guarantees of judicial independence, including the payment of judicial remuneration in the manner and amount specified by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges.” In addition, the applicant considers that the contested provisions of the Code violate the principle of legal certainty as a component of the principle of the rule of law and are discriminatory.

The Judge-Rapporteur also noted that he had sent letters of inquiry to the President of Ukraine, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Prime Minister of Ukraine, the Minister of Justice of Ukraine, the Chairman of the Supreme Court, and experts from scientific institutions regarding the issues raised in the constitutional complaint. The judges will be informed of the content of the positions expressed in the in-camera part of the plenary session.

During the session, the subject entitled to the constitutional complaint, Hryhorii Syvukhin, addressed the Court with a motion to issue a protective order. The Judge-Rapporteur announced that this motion would be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court for consideration.

After examining the case materials in the public part of the plenary session, the Court proceeded to the in-camera deliberations for a decision.

The video recording of the plenary session is available on the Court’s official website in the Section “Archive of Video Broadcasts of Sessions”.