On 10 September 2025, during the public part of the plenary session, the Second Senate deliberated the case upon a constitutional complaint filed by Illia Turenko on the constitutionality of paragraph 13 of Article 5.1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee” in the form of written proceedings.
During the plenary session, Judge-Rapporteur in the case, Oleh Pervomaiskyi, noted that Illia Turenko had appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to verify the compliance of paragraph 3 of Article 4.1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (hereinafter, the “Code”) and paragraph 13 of Article 5.1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fee” No. 3674-VI dated 8 July 2011, as amended (hereinafter, the “Law”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.
According to paragraph 13 of Article 5.1 of the Law, “combatants, victims of the Revolution of Dignity, Heroes of Ukraine – in cases related to the violation of their rights” are exempt from paying court fees during the consideration of cases in all courts.
In the opinion of the complainant, as a result of the Supreme Court’s application of paragraph 13 of Article 5.1 of the Law in its judgment of 8 January 2025, he was deprived of the constitutional rights guaranteed by Article 24.1 and Article 55.2 of the Constitution of Ukraine – the right to equality of all citizens before the law and the right of access to court. Furthermore, the obligation imposed on him to pay a court fee for filing a cassation appeal violated his constitutional right to own, use, and dispose of property, guaranteed by Article 41.1 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
The constitutional complaint and the materials attached indicate the following.
By its judgment of 18 December 2024, the Supreme Court left Illia Turenko’s cassation appeal without consideration due to non-payment of the court fee and granted time to remedy the deficiencies.
Illia Turenko subsequently submitted a statement on rectification, claiming that the subject matter of his appeal was directly connected with his social protection, and therefore he should be exempt from paying the court fee under paragraph 13 of Article 5.1 of the Law. The Supreme Court, however, rejected his application and returned the cassation appeal, reasoning that the benefits established by paragraph 13 of Article 5.1 of the Law apply only to cases where an administrative claim is filed for the protection of rights directly related to combatant status, and do not extend to claims beyond such legal relations.
In addition, the Judge-Rapporteur announced that, in order to ensure a full and objective deliberation of the case and the delivery of a reasoned decision by the Court, he had requested opinions from state authorities, academic institutions, higher education establishments, and members of the Scientific and Advisory Council of the Court. The judges will be informed in detail about the content of these responses during the in-camera part of the session.
After examining the case materials in the public part of the plenary session, the Court proceeded to the in-camera deliberations for 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”.
