Today, February 16, the Second Senate, in the public part of the plenary session in the form of written proceedings deliberated the case upon the constitutional complaint of Liudmyla Solomakha on the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 142.3 of the Law of Ukraine „On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges“ of 2 June 2016 № 1402-VIII (hereinafter – the Law).
During the plenary session, the Judge-Rapporteur in case Volodymyr Moisyk outlined the content of the constitutional complaint, as well as informed about the course of the case in the courts and the complainant’s arguments.
In particular, it was noted that L.Solomakha applied to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine with a request to verify the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 142.3 of the Law regarding the procedure for calculating the monthly lifetime allowance of a retired judge.
According to the complainant, the impugned provisions of the Law „in substantive way violate the previously stipulated guarantees of judicial independence”, that is the relevant guarantees established by the Law of Ukraine „On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges“ of 7 July 2010 № 2453 – VI as amended.
The complainant alleges that the application of the provisions of Article 142.3 in the final judgment in her case violated her „right, as a retired judge, to adequate material and social security, which is an element of guarantees of judicial independence“.
In the complainant’s view, a significant reduction in the monthly lifetime allowance of a retired judge have led to a violation of the right to own, use and dispose property, which is guaranteed by Article 41 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
Along with the substantiation of arguments regarding the inconsistency with the Basic Law of Ukraine, the complainant refers, particularly, to certain provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, legislative acts of Ukraine, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, court decisions in her own case.
The Judge-Rapporteur also informed that for the full and objective deliberation of the case the Court had sent 12 letters of inquiry to public authorities and research institutions in order to express their views on the issues raised in the constitutional complaint.
After examining the case file at the public part of the plenary session, the Second Senate proceeded to the in-camera part of the plenary session for a decision.
The public part of the plenary session is available on the Court’s official website under the heading „Archive of video broadcasts of the sessions“.
