On February 7, 2024, the Second Senate, at the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings, deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Petro Kontorskyi.
As stated by the judge-rapporteur in the case Oleh Pervomaiskyi, the applicant appealed the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to verify the compliance of Articles 4.2.1.7, 8.1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees” No. 3674–VI dated July 8, 2011 as amended (hereinafter referred to as “the Law“) with the Constitution of Ukraine.
In accordance with Article 4.2.1.7 of the Law, the court fee rate for filing a cassation complaint against a court decision, an application to join a cassation complaint against a court decision is set at the rate of 200 percent of the rate that was payable when filing a claim, another application and complaints in the amount of the disputed sum.
Pursuant to Article 8.1 of the Law, taking into account the property status of the party, a court may, by its ruling, at its petition, postpone or spread over a period of time the payment of the court fee for a certain term, but not longer than before the delivery of a court decision in the case, subject to the conditions specified in this Article.
The judge-rapporteur informed that from the content of the constitutional complaint and the attached materials, it can be seen that Petro Kontorskyi had a legal dispute regarding debt collection under the loan agreement, where he was the defendant, and filed a counterclaim regarding the invalidation of the loan agreement.
At the stage of the cassation appeal of the decisions in the case, the representative of Petro Kontorskyi filed a motion to exempt him from paying the court fee. However, by the ruling of the Supreme Court, which is the final court decision in this case, the subject of the right to a constitutional complaint was denied with this motion.
The applicant believes that as a result of the application of the provisions of Article 8.1 of the Law in his case in the final court decision, his right to judicial protection, guaranteed by Articles 55.1 and 55.2 of the Constitution of Ukraine, was violated on the basis of unsatisfactory property status – due to his financial inability to pay the court fee for filing a cassation complaint in the amount determined by the court according to Article 4.2.1.7 of the Law.
Also, in his constitutional complaint, Petro Kontorskyi claims that „the construction of Article 8.1 of Law No. 3674-VI dated July 8, 2011, according to which „the court, taking into account the property status of the party, may... “, determines that the issue of exemption, reduction, postponement or spread over a period of time of the court fee payment by persons not specified in Article 5, or in cases with a subject of dispute not covered by Article 5, is a right, not an obligation of the court, even if one of the conditions for such exemption, reduction, postponement or spread over a period of time is present“.
Furthermore, the judge-rapporteur pointed out that during the preparation of the case for deliberation, requests were sent to state authorities and scientific institutions to express positions on the issues raised in the constitutional complaint.
The Court examined the materials of the case at the public part of the plenary session and proceeded to the in-camera part for a decision.
The video recording of the public part of the plenary session is available on the official website of the Court in the section “Archive of Video Broadcasts of Sessions”.
