On June 19, 2024, at the public part of the plenary session, the Second Senate commenced deliberation of the case upon the constitutional complaint of Viacheslav Pleskach in the form of written proceedings.
During the plenary session, the judge-rapporteur in the case, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Vasyl Lemak, informed that Viacheslav Pleskach (hereinafter, the “Complainant”) had filed a petition with the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to review the constitutionality of Articles 293.2, 294.1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (hereinafter, the “Code”) in that they prohibit appealing against a court ruling refusing to reopen the proceedings in a case.
In accordance with Article 293.2 of the Code, “parties to a case, persons who did not participate in the case, if the court has decided on their rights, freedoms, interests and/or obligations, have the right to appeal against the rulings of the court of first instance separately from the court decision only in cases provided for in Article 294 of this Code. Appeals against court rulings that are not provided for in Article 294 of this Code are not allowed separately from the court decision.”
Article 294.1 of the Code provides for a list of court rulings of the first instance court that may be appealed separately from the court decision. This list does not include court rulings refusing to reinitiate the proceedings.
The complainant argues that the prohibition to appeal against a court ruling refusing to reinitiate the proceedings in a case has led to a violation of the constitutional principle of judicial proceedings, namely the reasonableness of the time limits for deliberation of a case by the court, as defined Article 129.2.7 of the Constitution of Ukraine, and, as a result, his constitutional right to access to court (Articles 55.1, 55.2 of the Constitution of Ukraine).
In addition, the complainant notes that the prohibition of appealing such rulings on appeal also contradicts of Article 125.5 of the Constitution of Ukraine, as, in his opinion, this may create procedural advantages for the public body over an individual, namely, depriving him of the chance to obtain the resumption of proceedings in the case on his claim and creating conditions for delaying the case, as a result of which the actions and inactions of the appealing public bodies avoid being assessed by the court as to their legality.
The judge-rapporteur also informed that in order to ensure a full and objective deliberation of the case and to ensure that the Court delivers a reasoned decision, he had sent inquiries to the Legal Department of the Secretariat of the Court, public bodies and higher education institutions. The judges will be informed in detail about the content of the responses at the in-camera part of the plenary session.
Having examined the case file in the public part, the Court proceeded to the in-camera part for a decision.
The public part of the plenary session is available on the official website of the Court at: https://ccu.gov.ua/kategoriya/2024.
