On March 1, 2023, the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, at the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings, deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Ihor Lazurenko regarding the constitutionality of the provisions of paragraphs four and five of Article 70.2 of the Law of Ukraine "On Executive Proceedings" dated June 2, 2016 No. 1404-VIII (hereinafter – the Law No. 1404), paragraphs three and four of Article 50.2 of the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory State Pension Insurance" dated July 9, 2003 No. 1058-IV (hereinafter – the Law No. 1058).
Judge-reporter in the case Viktor Horodovenko informed that the applicant appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine with a request to examine the constitutionality of the contested provisions of the Law No. 1404 and the Law No. 1058 "in the part that provides for the opportunity to apply for enforcement of the debtor's pension, which is the only source of income (the main source of livelihood) of a person and the amount of which is equal to the subsistence minimum established by law".
According to the provisions of Article 70.2 of the Law No. 1404, "no more than 50 percent of its amount can be deducted from the pension for the maintenance of family members (alimony), for compensation for losses from the theft of property of enterprises, institutions and organisations, for compensation by the pensioner for damage caused by mutilation or other health damage, as well as in view of the death of the victim, for the return of overpaid wages in the cases provided for by law" (paragraph four); "no more than 20 percent of the pension can be deducted for other types of charges" (paragraph five). The contested provisions of the Law No. 1058 are almost identical to these legislative provisions in their content.
The applicant believes that the contested provisions of the Law No. 1404 and the Law No. 1058, which were applied in the final court decision in his case, "allow the debtor's pension to be levied even if it is the only source of income (main source of livelihood) of the debtor and its amount is equal to the subsistence minimum for the relevant person". According to the author of the complaint, this state of affairs does not allow a person to maintain a sufficient standard of living and preserve human dignity, violates the right of a person to social protection from the state.
The judge-rapporteur also informed that in order to ensure a full and objective deliberation of the case, he sent letters of inquiry to the President of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine for Human Rights, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, as well as a number of scientific institutions and establishments of higher education with a request to deliver opinions on the issues raised in the constitutional complaint.
After examining the case materials at the public part of the plenary session, the Second Senate proceeded to the in-camera part for a decision.
The representative of the subject of the right to a constitutional complaint Andrii Ostapenko and the Permanent Representative of the Verkhovna Rada in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Maksym Dyrdin attended the plenary session.
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.