November 16, 2022
The judges of the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on November 16, at the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings, deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Serhii Vasylenko regarding the compliance of paragraph 6 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Priority Measures for the Reform of Prosecutor's Offices” dated September 19, 2019 No. 113-IX (hereinafter referred to as “Law No. 113”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.
During the plenary session, the Judge-Rapporteur in the case, Oleh Pervomaiskyi, explained the content of the constitutional complaint, the grounds for initiating constitutional proceedings in the case and informed about requests to state authorities and academic institutions.
According to the disputed provision of Law No. 113, “from the day this Law enters into force, all prosecutors of the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine, regional prosecutor's offices, local prosecutor's offices, and military prosecutor's offices are considered to have been personally notified in due course about a possible future dismissal from their position on the basis of Article 51.1.9 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor's Office”.
The subject of the right to a constitutional complaint believes that the contested provision of Law No. 113 does not comply with Article 3.2, Article 6.2, Article 8.1, Article 19.2, Article 43.1, Article 43.2, Article 43.6, and Article 85.2 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
The court studied the materials of the case in the public part of the plenary session and proceeded to the in-camera part for a decision.
The plenary session was attended by the subject of the right to a constitutional complaint, Serhii Vasylenko, and a Representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Head of the Division of Relations with Justice Bodies of the Apparatus of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Arkadii Laptiiev.
***
The Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the same day, in the public part of the plenary session, in the form of written proceedings, deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Olena Serbina regarding the conformity of Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Measures for Legislative Support of Pension System Reform” dated July 8, 2011 No. 3668-VI (hereinafter referred to as “Law No. 3668”), Article 86.15.6.1 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecutor's Office” dated October 14, 2014 No. 1697-VII (hereinafter referred to as “Law No. 1697”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.
Oleh Pervomaiskyi, the Judge-Rapporteur in this case, noted that the complainant appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine with a request to review the conformity of the specific provisions of Article 2 of Law No. 3668 with respect to the extension of its effect to Law No. 1697, whereby the maximum amount of the pension, assigned (enumerated) in accordance with Law No. 1697, may not exceed ten subsistence minimums established for persons who have lost their ability to work, with the Constitution of Ukraine.
The author of the complaint also requests to review the compliance of the specific provision of Law No. 1697, whereby “the maximum amount of the pension (taking into account allowances, increases, extra pension, targeted cash assistance, pension for special services to Ukraine, indexation and other pension supplements established by law, except for supplements to certain categories of persons who have special merits to the Motherland) may not exceed ten subsistence minimums established for persons who have lost their ability to work” with the Constitution of Ukraine.
After studying the materials of the case in the public part of the plenary session the Court proceeded to the in-camera part for a decision.
The public parts of the plenary sessions are available at the official website of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the section Archives of video broadcasts of sessions.
