March 12, 2026

On March 10, 2026, the Grand Chamber delivered Decision No. 2-r/2026 on the constitutional petition of the Supreme Court.

The author of the petition appealed to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to verify the compliance of Articles 3.2, 4.2.3.5 of the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees” No. 3674-VI dated July 8, 2011, as amended (hereinafter, the “Law”), in terms of the collection of court fees “for filing an appeal and cassation complaint against court rulings with an administrative court,” issued in accordance with Articles 382 and 383 of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine (hereinafter, the “Code”) with Articles 8.1, 55.1, 55.2, 129¹ of the Constitution of Ukraine.

Article 3.2 of the Law defines the list of applications for which court fees are not levied. Article 4.2.3.5 of the Law provides that court fees shall be set at the following rates: for filing an appeal or cassation complaint with an administrative court against a court ruling, a statement of joinder to an appeal or cassation complaint against a court ruling – 1 minimum subsistence level for able-bodied persons.

In its constitutional petition, the Supreme Court cited arguments regarding the incompatibility of the contested provisions of the Law with the Constitution of Ukraine. In particular, the Supreme Court justifies its legal position by the fact that the enforcement of a court decision is an integral stage of justice, and therefore imposing an additional financial burden on a person in the form of a court fee for procedural actions aimed at implementing such a decision is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, in particular its Articles 8, 55, and 129¹.

The author of the petition notes that the contested provisions of the Law, in conjunction with other provisions of procedural law, may establish a situation in which the right to apply to a court or to enforce a court decision actually depends on the financial status of the person, which, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, contradicts the principles of the rule of law, equality before the law and the courts, and access to justice.

In resolving the issues raised in the constitutional petition, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine was guided by its previous legal positions, the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the provisions of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In its decision, the Court stated that judicial review of the enforcement of court decisions is an important element in the legal mechanism for ensuring the enforcement of court decisions. In order to ensure the enforcement of court decisions, the state must establish an effective legal mechanism for judicial review, which will enable the person in whose favour the court decision was delivered to effectively protect their rights and freedoms.

The lack of adequate and effective national legal mechanisms defined at the legislative level may lead to the state's failure to fulfill its positive obligation to enforce court decisions, given the complications or impossibility of such a process, the binding nature of court decisions that have entered into legal force, thereby violating the individual's right of access to court and nullifying the effectiveness of the judicial process.

The court notes that the state's positive obligation to establish an effective mechanism for judicial review of the enforcement of court decisions, which ensures the effective realization of the right to judicial protection in administrative proceedings, is incompatible with the requirement to pay court fees in the procedure for considering an application for judicial review of the enforcement of a court decision at any stage of the court proceedings on the relevant application. This is due to the fact that the state must comply with the constitutional principle of accountability to the people and the closely related principle of good governance by assuming the financial responsibility for ensuring an effective procedure for the enforcement of court decisions taken against it in administrative proceedings.

The court also notes that the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On Court Fees” No. 4056-IX dated May 13, 2024 in connection with the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on ensuring the principle of binding court decisions No. 6 (II)/2024 , dated October 31, 2024, Article 3.2 of the Law was revised, according to which court fees are not charged, in particular, for filing an appeal and cassation appeal against a court ruling issued following the consideration of a complaint against a decision, action, or inaction of a state enforcement officer or other official of a state enforcement service, or a private enforcement officer during the enforcement of a court decision.

At the same time, the Court notes that, according to the aforementioned amendments, court fees are not charged “for filing appeals and cassation appeals against court rulings” regarding the enforcement of court decisions related to decisions, actions, or inaction of state enforcement officers, but this does not apply to cases where court fees are charged “for filing an appeal or cassation appeal against a court ruling” concerning decisions, actions or inaction committed by an authority – the defendant in the enforcement of a court decision, issued in accordance with Articles 382 and 383 of the Code.

The court emphasises that the contested provisions of the Law establish unjustified interference with a person's right of access to court. The obligation to pay a court fee “for filing an appeal and a cassation appeal against court rulings” issued in accordance with Articles 382 and 383 of the Code cannot be considered a fair element of the mechanism for monitoring the enforcement of court decisions, which is an integral part of the right of access to court, since a person who has paid court fees for filing a claim with the court and has obtained a binding court decision in their favour must additionally (repeatedly) pay court fees for judicial review over the enforcement of the court decision.

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine notes that the state cannot impose an additional financial burden on a person for its obligation to ensure the enforcement of a court decision in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Having examined the constitutional petition and the materials attached thereto, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine declared Article 3.2, Article 4.2.3.5 of the Law in that they allow for the collection of court fees “for filing an appeal and a cassation appeal against court rulings” issued in accordance with Articles 382 and 383 of the Code as incompatible with the Constitution of Ukraine (unconstitutional).

Therefore, the provisions of the Law that have been declared unconstitutional shall cease to have effect from the date of delivery of this Decision by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

The Judge-Rapporteur in this case is Oksana Hryshchuk.