On October 20 the First 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 Roman Truba regarding the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 11.2.1 of the Law of Ukraine “On State Bureau of Investigation” of November 12, 2015 No. 794-VIII as amended (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 794) and the first and second paragraphs of clause 3.2 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine on Improving the Activities of the State Bureau of Investigation” of December 3, 2019 No. 305–IX (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 305).
During the plenary session, Judge-Rapporteur Iryna Zavhorodnia presented the content of the constitutional complaint and the grounds for initiating proceedings.
In accordance with the contested provisions of the Law No. 794 “The Director of the State Bureau of Investigation shall be dismissed by the President of Ukraine on the grounds specified in parts four and five of Article 10 of this Law”.
The impugned provisions of Law No. 305 stipulate that from the day Law No. 305 enters into force, the powers of the Director of the State Bureau of Investigation, the First Deputy Director of the State Bureau of Investigation and the Deputy Director of the State Bureau of Investigation shall be terminated early. Within five working days from the date of entry into force of Law No. 305 the President of Ukraine shall appoint an Acting Director of the State Bureau of Investigation, who shall have the powers of the Director of the State Bureau of Investigation provided for by Law No. 794.
According to the petitioner, the impugned provisions of the laws violate and restrict his constitutional rights to work and access to the civil service; expand the powers of the President of Ukraine defined by the Constitution of Ukraine regarding the appointment and dismissal of heads of central executive bodies; do not comply with the principle of legal certainty and the principle of time-irreversibility of regulations.
The Judge-Rapporteur also informed that for the full and objective deliberation of the case the Court had sent inquiries to public authorities and scientific institutions.
After examining the case file at the public part of the plenary session, the Court proceeded to the in-camera part of the plenary session for a 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”.
