On June 19, 2024, the Second Senate, at the public part of the plenary session, began deliberation upon the constitutional complaint of Oksana Bukhtoiarova in the form of written proceedings.
During the plenary session, the judge-rapporteur in the case, Viktor Gorodovenko, outlined the content of the constitutional complaint and the complainant's arguments. In particular, the judge noted that Oksana Bukhtoiarova had complained to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine with a request to verify the compliance of Article 14².1 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences (hereinafter, the “Code”) with Article 61.2 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
According to the disputed provision of the Code, administrative liability for offences in the field of road safety recorded in the automatic mode <...>, or for violations of the rules of stopping, standing, parking of vehicles recorded in the photographic mode <...>, is borne by the responsible person – an individual or the head of the legal entity in whose name the vehicle is registered <...>.
Oksana Bukhtoiarova argues that in view of Article 61.2 of the Constitution of Ukraine, “legal liability is established for the commission of a specific offence by a specific person, i.e. it is individual in nature”, and Article 14².1 of the Code “makes it possible to bring to administrative liability not the guilty persons, but the formal owners”.
She also claims that as a result of the courts' application of Article 14².1 of the Code in her case, her right under Article 62.1 of the Constitution of Ukraine, according to which a person is presumed innocent of a crime and cannot be subjected to criminal punishment until his or her guilt is proved in accordance with the law and established by a court verdict of guilty, was violated.
The content of the constitutional complaint and the materials attached to it show the following. Oksana Bukhtoiarova was found guilty of committing an administrative offence under Article 122.1 of the Code and an administrative penalty in the form of a fine was imposed on her.
In this regard, she filed a lawsuit with the court of first instance, in which she requested that the decision issued against her be declared unlawful and cancelled, and that the proceedings on the administrative offence be closed, stating, in particular, that “she was not driving the car and was at home at her place of residence, as <...> she was suffering from COVID-19”. This court dismissed the claim.
The Court of Appeal dismissed Oksana Bukhtoiarova complaint and upheld the decision of the first instance court. Referring to Article 14².1 of the Code, the court noted that “the plaintiff, as an individual in whose name the vehicle is registered, is liable for violations of the rules of stopping, standing, parking of vehicles recorded in the photographic mode”; “the transfer by the plaintiff <... > of the car to another person does not release the plaintiff from administrative liability for violations of the rules of stopping, standing, parking of vehicles recorded in the photographic mode, since <...> release is possible only after the mandatory actions provided for in Article 279³ of the Code of Administrative Offences”.
The Board of Judges of the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court refused to initiate cassation proceedings on the cassation appeal of Oksana Bukhtoiarova.
After studying the case file in the public part of the plenary session, the Second Senate proceeded to the in-camera part of the plenary session for a decision.
The public part of the plenary session was attended by the subject of the constitutional complaint, lawyer Oksana Bukhtoiarova.
The video recording of the plenary session is available on the official website of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the Section “Archive of video broadcasts of the sessions”.
