On Wednesday, March 15, 2023, at the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings the First Senate deliberated the case of Oksana Tymoshenkova upon the constitutional complaint regarding compliance of clause 6, a specific provision of paragraph 6 of clause 19 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine concerning Priority Measures to Reform the Bodies of the Prosecution Office” dated September 19, 2019 No. 113-IX (hereinafter referred to as the “Law No. 113”) with the Constitution of Ukraine.
During the plenary session, the Judge-rapporteur in the case Oleksandr Petryshyn, outlined the content of the constitutional complaint, and also informed about the progress of the case in the courts and the applicant's substantiation.
In particular, he noted that the subject of the right to constitutional complaint requests to examine the compliance of clause 6 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law, according to which “from the date of entry into force of this Law, all prosecutors of the Prosecutor’s General Office of Ukraine, regional prosecution offices, local prosecution offices, military prosecution offices shall be deemed to have been personally warned in due manner of possible future dismissal from office on the basis of clause 9 of Article 51.1 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Prosecution Office”, with the Constitution of Ukraine.
Also, the author of the complaint identified paragraph 6 of clause 19 of Section II “Final and Transitional Provisions” of the Law as the subject of constitutional review, whereby “the prosecutor's stay on sick leave due to temporary incapacity, on vacation or on a business trip to the National Academy of the Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine to participate in its work on a permanent basis is not an obstacle to his/her dismissal from the office of prosecutor in accordance with this paragraph”.
According to the applicant, the application of the contested provisions of the Law by the courts in her case led to the violation of her constitutional rights and guarantees, in particular the right to work, to the prohibition of narrowing the content and scope of existing rights and freedoms when adopting new laws and making amendments to existing laws, to equality in constitutional rights and freedoms, on the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of profession and on protection against illegal dismissal.
The complainant emphasises that her dismissal took place during her stay on sick leave due to temporary incapacity, which violates the constitutional guarantee against illegal dismissal.
The Judge-rapporteur informed that the Court sent inquiries to state authorities, a number of establishments of higher education and scientific institutions to deliver opinions on the issues raised in the constitutional complaint.
Oksana Tymoshenkova, the subject of the right to constitutional complaint, and Maksym Dyrdin, Permanent Representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine at the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, attended the session.
The public part of the plenary sessions is available at the link: “Archive of video broadcasts of the Court”
***
On the same day, the First Senate at the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Serhii Vodolahin regarding the compliance of paragraph 2 of Section I of the Law of Ukraine “On Amending the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by of the Chornobyl disaster” on increasing the level of pension provision for certain categories of persons” dated June 29, 2021 No. 1584-IX (hereinafter referred to as “the Law”), which set the amount of disability pensions that occurred as a result of mutilation or illness as a result of the Chornobyl disaster, with the Constitution of Ukraine.
As noted by Oleksandr Petryshyn, Judge-rapporteur in the case, the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to examine the conformity with the Constitution of Ukraine of the contested provision of the Law amending the Law of Ukraine “On the Status and Social Protection of Citizens Affected by the Chornobyl Disaster” dated February 28,1991 No. 796-XII: “Article 54.3 shall be amended as follows:
“In all cases, the amounts of the disability pension that occurred as a result of mutilation or illness as a result of the Chornobyl disaster may not be lower: for the I group of disability – 6,000 hryvnias; for the II group of disabilities - 4,800 hryvnias; for the III group of disabilities - 3,700 hryvnias; for children with disabilities - 3,700 hryvnias”;
shall be supplemented with paragraphs 4 and 5 of the following content: “The amounts of the pension provided for in paragraph 3 of this article, starting from 2022 every year from March 1, are indexed according to the procedure established by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, taking into account the coefficient of increase determined in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 42.2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory State Pension Insurance”.
The procedure for assigning a disability pension due to mutilation or illness and a pension in view of the loss of a breadwinner as a result of the Chornobyl disaster is determined by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine.
According to the author of the complaint, paragraph 2 of Section I of the Law “regarding increasing the level of pension provision for certain categories of persons contradicts paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 22 of the Constitution of Ukraine”.
The Judge-rapporteur informed that in order to ensure comprehensive and objective deliberation of the case, he had sent inquiries to state authorities, as well as a number of scientific institutions and establishments of higher education to deliver opinions on the issues raised in the constitutional complaint.
The subject of the right to constitutional complaint Serhii Vodolahin and the Permanent Representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Maksym Dyrdin attended the session.
The public part of the plenary session is available at the link: “Archive of video broadcasts of the Court”.
The First Senate of the Court examined the materials of these cases in the public part of the plenary sessions and proceeded to the in-camera part for a decision.
