Subject of Dispute: Challenging the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Expressing No Confidence and Dismissing the Ukrainian Parliament’s Commissioner for Human Rights during Martial Law.
Main Arguments of the Court:
The Court clearly interpreted for the first time that during martial law, the Verkhovna Rada may dismiss an official by expressing no confidence, even if this is not provided for by special laws. This is an additional ground that applies exclusively during the period of martial law.
The Court determined that:
1) The dismissal occurred within the constitutional powers of the Verkhovna Rada;
2) The procedure for expressing no confidence was observed;
3) The plaintiff was given an opportunity to explain her position;
4) The grounds for dismissal were substantiated.
Court Decision: To leave the appeal without satisfaction and the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court unchanged.
