On July 19, 2023, 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 Volodymyr Yakimenko regarding the constitutionality of paragraphs 1, 5 of Article 19.6, paragraph 2 of Article 389.3 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”).
During the plenary session, the judge-rapporteur in the case, Oksana Hryshchuk, reported that Volodymyr Yakimenko appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine with a request to verify the compliance of the Code's provision with the Constitution of Ukraine, according to which minor cases are: “cases in which the value of the claim does not exceed one hundred amounts of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons; cases on the protection of consumer rights, in which the value of the claim does not exceed two hundred and fifty amounts of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons” (paragraphs 1, 5 of Article 19.6).
The applicant also requests to verify paragraph 2 of Article 389.3 of the Code, according to which the following are not subject to cassation appeal:
“2) court decisions in minor cases and in cases with a claim value not exceeding two hundred and fifty amounts of the subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons, except in cases where:
a) the cassation appeal concerns a legal issue that is of fundamental importance for the formation of a unified law enforcement practice;
b) a person who files a cassation appeal, in accordance with this Code, is deprived of the opportunity to refute the circumstances established by the contested court decision, when deliberating another case;
c) the case is of significant public interest or is of exceptional importance for the party to the case who files a cassation appeal;
d) the court of first instance mistakenly classified the case as minor one“.
It can be seen from the content of the constitutional complaint and the materials attached to it, that in May of last year, the applicant applied to the district court of the city of Kyiv with an application for the adoption of an additional decision in the case upon his claim against the LLC “Investment and Settlement Center” for the protection of consumer rights, in which he requested “to collect from the defendant the court costs incurred by him during the deliberation of the civil case in the amount of UAH 15,329”.
The court of first instance, with decision of which the court of appeal agreed, left the application in the part of recovery of court costs without deliberation, in the other part the court returned it to the applicant. Disagreeing with the court decisions, Volodymyr Yakimenko appealed them in the cassation procedure. Refusing to initiate a cassation proceeding, the Supreme Court assumed that the case is of minor ones and noted in the decision, in particular, that “the application of the criterion of minor one in this case is predictable; the court dispute was deliberated by the courts of two instances, which had full jurisdiction; the applicant did not cite other exceptional circumstances under which, in accordance with the provisions of the Code, the case would be deliberated in the cassation procedure”.
The author of the claim believes that paragraph 2 of Article 389.3 of the Code contradicts the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine and limits his constitutional right to judicial protection regarding guarantees for cassation review of court decisions.
The judge-rapporteur also informed that both senates have similar cases regarding the same issues.
In this case, the Court proceeded to the in-camera part of the plenary session for a decision.
Volodymyr Yakimenko, subject of the right to a constitutional complaint, attended the session.
The public part of the plenary session is available on the official website of the Court at the link: https://ccu.gov.ua/kategoriya/2023.
