Constitutional Petitions Under Review
On May 7, the Grand Chamber of the Court continued its examination of cases stemming from constitutional submissions made by the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights and 51 members of parliament. These proceedings were conducted during closed-door plenary sessions. The review covered the Ombudsman's challenge to the constitutionality of Article 29, Part Four of Ukraine's Law 'On Protecting the Population from Infectious Diseases' (No. 1645–III, dated April 6, 2000), as well as a submission from 51 lawmakers questioning the constitutionality of provisions in Paragraph 6, Part One, Article 4 and Part Three, Article 11 of the Law 'On Voluntary Amalgamation of Territorial Communities.' Another submission sought an official interpretation of Articles 7, 20, 92, 118, 133, 140, and 141 of Ukraine's Constitution.
The Grand Chamber extended the deadline until June 4, 2026, for issuing rulings on whether to open or refuse constitutional proceedings in cases brought by individual S.S. Chornomorets and the joint venture Poltava Gas and Oil Company. Meanwhile, the Third Panel of Judges from the First Senate issued final rulings rejecting the initiation of constitutional proceedings for complaints filed by:
- Viktor Valentynovych Panchenko, whose complaint targeted the constitutionality of Article 284, Part One, Paragraph 7 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine;
- Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Skarzhevskyi, whose challenge focused on the constitutionality of Article 130, Part One, in conjunction with Part Three of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses;
- Radomyr-Vsevolod Vasyliovych Shostak, whose complaint questioned the constitutionality of Article 60, Part One of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
Procedural Opening Questions
The Second Panel of Judges from the Second Senate deliberated on whether to open proceedings for a complaint by Anatolii Mykolaiovych Ivchenko, which challenged the constitutionality of Article 459, Part Three, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The panel has postponed further consideration of this matter to its next session. These developments illustrate the judiciary's ongoing engagement with critical issues surrounding the constitutionality of Ukrainian legislation.
“The review of constitutional submissions in the Supreme Court represents a vital step toward ensuring legal certainty in Ukraine.”
The outcomes of these cases could significantly influence legal enforcement, citizen rights protection, and the evolution of judicial practice. The extension of review timelines underscores the court's thorough approach to evaluating legislative acts against the standards set by Ukraine's Constitution.