Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

DECISION OF THE SECOND SENATE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE IN THE CASE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLAINT OF BOGDAN MYKOLAIOVYCH PANCHENKO REGARDING THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE (CONSTITUTIONALITY) OF PARAGRAPH 9 OF PART ONE OF ARTICLE 51, SUBPARAGRAPH 1 OF PARAGRAPH 5-1 OF SECTION XIII “TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS” OF THE LAW OF UKRAINE “ON THE PROSECUTION” OF OCTOBER 14, 2014 NO. 1697-VII (CONCERNING CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF PROSECUTOR’S INDEPENDENCE)

The decision concerns the constitutionality of two provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Prosecution”:

1. The provision on dismissing a prosecutor in the event of liquidation/reorganization of the prosecution body or reduction of the number of prosecutors (paragraph 9, part 1, Article 51) was declared unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) decided that this provision grants the Prosecutor General excessively broad discretionary powers without a clear definition of their scope, which could be used to influence prosecutors’ independence.

2. The provision on the necessity of successful testing for current prosecutors to be appointed to newly created local prosecutor’s offices was declared constitutional. The CCU determined that this does not violate prosecutors’ independence, as the success of testing depends on professional qualities, not on management decisions.

Key provisions:
• The Prosecution Service is part of the justice system and must ensure prosecutors’ independence
• Dismissal of a prosecutor is possible only on grounds clearly defined by law
• Selection of prosecutors must be carried out based on objective criteria for assessing their professional qualities

Full text by link

Leave a comment

E-mail
Password
Confirm Password