April 5, 2023
On Wednesday, April 5, 2023, 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 Volodymyr Parovyi regarding the constitutionality of specific provisions 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 Prosecution Office” dated October 14, 2014 No. 1697-VII (hereinafter referred to as “Law No. 1697”).
During the plenary session, the judge-rapporteur in the case, Serhiy Holovaty, reported on the content of the constitutional complaint and the grounds for initiating constitutional proceedings in the case.
The judge-rapporteur noted that the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to examine the constitutionality of the specific provisions of Article 2 of Law No. 3668 with respect to the extension of its effect to Law No.1697, which established that “the maximum amount of a pension (taking into account allowances, increases, additional pensions, targeted financial assistance, pensions for special services to Ukraine, indexation and other supplements to pensions established by the law, except for additional payments to allowances for certain categories of persons who have special merits to the Motherland), assigned (ascribed) in accordance with Law No. 1697 cannot exceed ten subsistence minimums established for persons who have lost working capacity”.
The author of the complaint also requests to examine the constitutionality of the provision of Law No. 1697, according to which “the maximum amount of a pension (taking into account allowances, increases, additional pensions, targeted financial assistance, pensions for special services to Ukraine, indexation and other supplements to pensions established by the law, except for additional payments to allowances for certain categories of persons who have special merits to the Motherland) cannot exceed ten subsistence minimums established for persons who have lost working capacity”.
In pursuance with Volodymyr Parovyi, the contested provisions of the Law No. 3668 and Law No. 1697 are those that narrow the content and scope of independence of prosecutors and do not correspond to a number of norms of the Constitution of Ukraine.
As the applicant notes, on the date of assigning him a pension for years of service, the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecution Office” dated November 5, 1991 did not establish any limit on the amount of pensions, and therefore, he had legitimate expectations of being granted the pension assigned to him in full.
He believes that the limitation of the maximum amount of the pension, established by the disputed provisions of these laws, leads to the “collapse of hopes” regarding the legitimate expectation.
Moreover, according to the author of the complaint, limiting the maximum amount of his pension, failure to pay it in full, is an interference with his property rights.
The judge-rapporteur informed that a joint case of nine constitutional complaints concerning the same issue is pending before the Grand Chamber of the Court.
The court examined the case materials in the public part of the plenary session and proceeded to the in-camera part.
Volodymyr Parovyi, subject of the right to a constitutional complaint, and Maksym Dyrdin, a Permanent Representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine at the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, attended the public part of the plenary session.
The session is available on the official website of the Court in the section “Archive of Video Broadcasts of Sessions”.
