Test

[:uk]Some issues regarding the implementation of joint projects with the Credit Institution for Reconstruction (“KfW”)[:][:uk]“`html Analysis of the Resolution […]

[:uk]Ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the consolidation of constitutional proceedings in the case concerning the constitutional complaints of V'yacheslav Yuriyovych Pleskach regarding the conformity of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of the first part of Article 423 of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine and in the case concerning the constitutional complaints of Mykyta Ihorovych Yevstifeyev and Volodymyr Petrovych Yakimenko regarding the conformity of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of the first part of Article 423 of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine.[:][:uk]The Constitutional Court of Ukraine Consolidated Proceedings Regarding the Constitutionality of Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine The Grand Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, by its ruling of October 1, 2024, No. 8-уп/2024, decided to consolidate constitutional proceedings in the cases of constitutional complaints filed by Vіacheslav Yuriyovych Pleskach, Mykyta Ihorovych Yevstifeyev, and Volodymyr Petrovych Yakimenko. All complaints concern the compliance of the first part of Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine with the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality). Essence of the Complaints The applicants challenge the constitutionality of the first part of Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulates certain aspects of civil procedure. All three complaints relate to the same issue, namely the compliance of this article with the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine. Preliminary Decisions of the Senate of the Constitutional Court Previously, the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, by its ruling of June 5, 2024, No. 10-уп(II)/2024, consolidated constitutional proceedings concerning two constitutional complaints filed by Vіacheslav Yuriyovych Pleskach regarding the same article. Additionally, the First Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, by its ruling of September 11, 2024, No. 13-у(I)/2024, consolidated proceedings concerning the constitutional complaints of Mykyta Ihorovych Yevstifeyev and Volodymyr Petrovych Yakimenko regarding the same norm. Justification for Consolidating Proceedings According to the first paragraph of the first part of Article 76 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine,” if the Court receives several petitions concerning the same issue or interrelated issues, and constitutional proceedings have been opened regarding them, they may be consolidated into one. The Grand Chamber conducted a comparative analysis of the content of the constitutional complaints and established that all of them pertain to the constitutionality of the first part of Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Thus, it was decided to consolidate the proceedings to ensure the efficiency and completeness of the case review. Decision of the Grand Chamber Consolidation of Proceedings: The constitutional proceedings concerning the complaints of Vіacheslav Yuriyovych Pleskach, Mykyta Ihorovych Yevstifeyev, and Volodymyr Petrovych Yakimenko have been consolidated into one constitutional proceeding. Transfer of the Case: The case has been transferred for consideration to the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Appointment of Reporting Judges: Judges Viktor Valentynovych Horodovenko and Halyna Valentynivna Yurovskaya of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine have been appointed as reporting judges in this case. Composition of the Grand Chamber in Adopting the Decision Viktor Vasylovych Kryvenko (Chair of the Meeting) Viktor Valentynovych Horodovenko (Reporting Judge) Oksana Viktorivna Hryshchuk Viktor Ivanovych Kychun Viktor Pavlovych Kolisnyk Vasyl Vasylovych Lemak Volodymyr Romanovych Moisyk Alla Serhiivna Oliinyk Oleh Oleksiyovych Pervomaiskyi Oleksandr Vitaliyovych Petryshyn Serhiy Vasylovych Riznyk Petro Todosiovych Filuk Halyna Valentynivna Yurovskaya (Reporting Judge) Legislative Basis for the Decision The ruling refers to the articles of the Constitution of Ukraine (in particular, Article 153) and the articles of the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine” (Articles 32, 35, 55, 56, 59, 65, 66, 76, 86). The provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (§ 50, § 53) were also taken into account. Next Steps Following the consolidation of proceedings, the case will be considered by the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The reporting judges will prepare materials for review, after which the Court will make a decision regarding the constitutionality of the contested norm. Significance of the Decision The consolidation of proceedings will allow the Constitutional Court to comprehensively and effectively examine the issue of the constitutionality of the first part of Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, taking in […]

[:uk]Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the termination of constitutional proceedings in the case concerning the constitutional submission of 51 Members of Parliament of Ukraine regarding the compliance of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) with the provisions of Section I, second paragraph of Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 2 of Section II of the Law of Ukraine "On Recognizing as Invalid the Law of Ukraine 'On the List of State Property Objects Not Subject to Privatization'"[:][:uk] Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated October 1, 2024, No. 6-уп/2024 Case Summary: The Grand Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine examined the constitutional submission of 51 Members of Parliament of Ukraine. The deputies challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of Section I and the second paragraph of Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 2 of Section II of the Law of Ukraine “On Recognizing the Law of Ukraine ‘On the List of State Property Objects Not Subject to Privatization’ as Invalid” dated October 2, 2019, No. 145-IX (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 145). Main Provisions of the Resolution: Closure of Constitutional Proceedings: The Constitutional Court of Ukraine closed the proceedings in the case concerning the constitutional submission of the deputies based on the grounds provided by law. Provision of Section I of Law No. 145: Section I of Law No. 145 recognized as invalid the Law of Ukraine “On the List of State Property Objects Not Subject to Privatization” No. 847-XIV. The authors of the submission believed that this contradicts several articles of the Constitution of Ukraine, particularly regarding the powers of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the protection of state property. The Court established that the actual repeal of the list of objects not subject to privatization was caused by the actions of the legislator, but the issue of the absence of legislative regulation does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The Court noted that addressing the issue of legislative gaps in this area falls within the competence of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Provision of the second paragraph of Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 2 of Section II of Law No. 145: This provision excluded the nineteenth paragraph from part two of Article 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Privatization of State and Communal Property” No. 2269-VIII, which concerned the national postal operator. The Members of Parliament argued that this contradicts the Constitution of Ukraine, as it may lead to the alienation of property belonging to the state postal operator. The Court established that the authors of the submission did not provide adequate justification for their claims regarding the unconstitutionality of this provision. The Court emphasized that assumptions cannot be considered arguments supporting the unconstitutionality of legal acts. Grounds for Closing Proceedings: Regarding Section I of Law No. 145 – based on paragraph 2 of Article 62 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine,” since the issue does not fall within the Court’s jurisdiction. Regarding the second paragraph of Subparagraph 1 of Paragraph 2 of Section II of Law No. 145 – based on paragraph 3 of Article 62 of the same law, due to the constitutional submission’s non-compliance with legal requirements. Court Conclusions: The Constitutional Court of Ukraine does not have the authority to resolve issues related to legislative gaps caused by legislative inaction. The constitutional submission must contain adequate justification for claims of unconstitutionality of an act or its individual provisions. Key Aspects of the Resolution: The Court emphasized its powers defined by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.” The absence of a legislative act that should have been adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine cannot be subject to consideration by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Failure to provide adequate justification in the constitutional submission is grounds for refusal to consider the case. Final Provisions: The resolution of the Constitutional Court […]

[:uk]On the approval of the requirements for the algorithm and criteria for the formation of a unique group identifier.[:][:uk]The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine […]

[:uk]On Amendments to the Terms of Providing Affordable Mortgage Lending to Citizens of Ukraine by the Private Joint-Stock Company "Ukrainian Financial Housing Company"[:][:uk]The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted Resolution No. 1136 on October 4, 2024, which amends the Conditions for ensuring accessible mortgage lending for citizens of Ukraine by the Public Joint Stock Company “Ukrainian Financial Housing Company.” The main provisions of this resolution involve amendments to the previously approved conditions. Let us examine the amended points in detail: 1. Addition of Subparagraph 5 of Paragraph 8 Subparagraph 5 of Paragraph 8 now includes a new paragraph after the tenth paragraph, which states: “Procedure for preferential mortgage lending to internally displaced persons financed by grants provided by the Reconstruction Credit Institution (KfW), approved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated April 28, 2021, No. 451 (Official Bulletin of Ukraine, 2021, No. 39, p. 2326).” This addition means that the list of legal acts on the basis of which accessible mortgage lending is carried out now also includes the Procedure approved by Resolution No. 451 dated April 28, 2021. This Procedure pertains to preferential mortgage lending for internally displaced persons financed by grants from the Reconstruction Credit Institution (KfW). 2. Presentation of Subparagraph 3 of Paragraph 9 in a New Edition Subparagraph 3 of Paragraph 9 is presented in a new edition, which details the types of real estate that cannot be subject to mortgage within the framework of the accessible mortgage lending program. In particular, it is specified: General Restrictions: The subject of the mortgage cannot include premises of housing funds intended for temporary residence; summer or garden houses; buildings and apartments that are architectural monuments and listed in the State Register of Immovable Monuments of Ukraine. For Candidates of Certain Categories: restrictions are established regarding the age of the building (based on the date of commissioning) and territorial location. Detailing restrictions by categories of persons: For Candidates Defined in Subparagraphs 1-5 of Paragraph 3 of the Conditions: Apartments: If the property is located in Chernihiv, Sumy, Kharkiv, Zaporizhia, Kherson regions – commissioned earlier than 10 years before the date of the contract (i.e., buildings older than 10 years cannot be subject to mortgage). If the property is located in other regions or Kyiv – commissioned earlier than 3 years before the date of the contract. Residential Houses: similar restrictions regarding the date of commissioning as for apartments. For Candidates Defined in Subparagraph 6 of Paragraph 3 of the Conditions: Apartments and Residential Houses: cannot be subject to mortgage if they were commissioned earlier than 10 years before the date of the mortgage agreement. For Candidates Defined in Subparagraph 6-1 of Paragraph 3 of the Conditions: Apartments and Residential Houses: similar restrictions as for the previous category (older than 10 years are not suitable). For Candidates Defined in Subparagraph 7 of Paragraph 3 of the Conditions: Apartments and Residential Houses: properties commissioned earlier than 3 years before the date of the mortgage agreement cannot be subject to mortgage. It is also noted that a residential house located on a land plot that does not belong to residential and public development land cannot be subject to mortgage. 3. Amendments to Paragraph 11 In the second, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of Paragraph 11, after the words “initial payment,” the phrase “or its part” has been added. This means that where it previously referred to “initial payment,” the possibility of making a partial initial payment is now taken into account. Thus, the terms become more flexible regarding the payment of the initial payment or its part. Entry into Force The resolution comes into force 30 days after its publication, except for the eleventh and thirteenth paragraphs of Paragraph 2 of the amendments approved by this resolution. These paragraphs will come into force on December 18, 2024. The specified paragraphs relate to specific provisions in the list of amendments affecting certain categories of candidates and conditions for mortgage len […]