The Constitutional Court of Ukraine refused to open proceedings on Orlov O.A.’s complaint regarding the constitutionality of the provisions of Law No. 2147-VIII related to changes in procedural codes. The complainant challenged the law’s provisions stating that new norms on criminal proceedings closure do not have retroactive effect and are applied only to cases whose information was entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations after the amendments came into force. The essence of the dispute was that the cassation court cancelled the closure of criminal proceedings against the complainant because it was initiated before the new norms came into effect. The Constitutional Court established that the complainant did not provide proper substantiation of the unconstitutionality of the challenged provisions, but merely expressed disagreement with their application by courts and his own incorrect understanding of the principle of non-retroactivity of law. The complaint was deemed inadmissible due to non-compliance with requirements for substantiating claims of law unconstitutionality. Key provisions of the ruling:
- A constitutional complaint must contain substantiation of the law’s unconstitutionality, indicating violated constitutional rights
- Disagreement with the law’s application by courts and incorrect understanding of its content are not proper substantiation of unconstitutionality
- Laws do not have retroactive effect, except in cases where they mitigate or cancel a person’s liability
