Constitutional Court of Ukraine Reviews Multiple Complaints
On November 11, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine examined several constitutional complaints. The Court decided to postpone the hearing of one case, continued the review of another, rejected the opening of several constitutional proceedings, and initiated a new case.
The First Senate of the Constitutional Court postponed the hearing of the constitutional complaint filed by Vyacheslav Yuriyovych Pleskach. This case questions the constitutionality of the seventh paragraph of subitem 1, item 3, part two of Article 4 in the Law of Ukraine 'On Judicial Fees,' dated July 8, 2011, No. 3674–VI, with amendments. The postponement was made in accordance with part three of Article 70 of the Law of Ukraine 'On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.'
Additionally, the First Senate resumed the consideration of the constitutional complaint submitted by Ashot Eduardovych Arustamyan. This case challenges the constitutionality of a specific provision in paragraph 1, part one of Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine concerning compensation for damages and destruction of certain categories of real estate caused by armed conflict, terrorist acts, and sabotage linked to the armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, as well as the State Register of damaged and destroyed property under these circumstances. The review of this case will continue in upcoming plenary sessions.
Decisions on Proceedings and New Case Initiations
The First Senate’s judicial panel refused to open constitutional proceedings based on complaints filed by:
- Valentyna Pavlivna Troyan
- Viktoriya Viktorivna Punyak
- Yevhen Leonidovych Siriak
Meanwhile, the Third panel of judges from the Second Senate denied opening constitutional proceedings regarding Sergey Hryhorovych Holokolosov’s complaint. However, the panel was not unanimous in rejecting the complaint filed by the LLC 'Center for Unmanned Systems Research'; this matter will be further discussed in a session of the Second Senate.
Furthermore, the judges initiated constitutional proceedings in response to the complaint lodged by Yuriy Yuriyovych Kusliy. This case concerns subitems 'a' and 'v' of item 2, part five, Article 328 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. These developments highlight the Court’s active engagement with constitutional issues while demonstrating a careful, case-by-case approach to complaint reviews.
The Court’s decisions to defer hearings and advance certain cases reflect an intensified judicial focus amid ongoing challenges. Cases involving compensation for property damaged in the context of military actions remain especially relevant given the current conflict. The selective acceptance and rejection of complaints reveal the Court’s discerning stance, which may have significant implications for Ukraine’s evolving legal landscape.
In light of the recent developments in the Constitutional Court, it is important to examine how these proceedings compare to other ongoing cases. For instance, a similar situation arose with Kovalov's complaint, where the court also made significant decisions regarding constitutional reviews. To understand the broader implications of these rulings, you can read more about the advancements in Kovalov's case here.