Publication date: 14.05.2024
The second senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine adopted a Decision regarding the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Court Fees"
On May 13, 2024, the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine adopted a Decision regarding the unconstitutionality of certain provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Court Fees" following a constitutional complaint by Volodymyr Mykhailovych Lopushanskyi. This is reported by the KSU Communications and Legal Monitoring Department.
The applicant asked the Court to verify compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine, part two of article 3, subparagraph 9 of paragraph 1 of part two of article 4 of the Law of Ukraine "On Court Fees" dated July 8, 2011 No. 3674-VI, as amended.
The specified provisions of the Law establish the obligation of the debt collector in enforcement proceedings to pay a court fee for filing a complaint against the decision, actions or inaction of the state bailiff or other official of the executive service upon filing an appeal or cassation complaint against the decision of the judge, issued as a result of the review of the appeal against the decision, actions or inaction of the state executive.
The author of the petition emphasized that the application in the final court decision in his case of the provisions of the Law, which he disputes, violates his right to judicial protection and to challenge in court the decisions, actions or inaction of state authorities, officials and officials (parts one, two Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine) and does not ensure the state's execution of the court decision and control over its execution (Article 1291 of the Basic Law of Ukraine).Resolving the issues raised in the constitutional complaint,
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized the second part of Article 3, sub-paragraph 9 of paragraph 1 of the second part of Article 4 of the Law of Ukraine "On Court Fees" dated July 8, 2011 No. 3674-VI with the changes that do not correspond to the Constitution of Ukraine (are unconstitutional),
in the fact that they make it possible to pay the court fee when filing an appeal and cassation complaint against a court decision, issued as a result of the review of a complaint against the decision, actions or inaction of a state executive or other official of a state executive service body or a private executive during the execution of a court decision adopted in accordance with the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.
In the Decision, the Court emphasized the importance of the prescriptions of the first and second parts of Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine regarding the right of everyone to legally defend their rights and freedoms that are violated or oppressed as a result of the decisions, actions or inaction of the subjects of power, and also indicated that the prescriptions the third sentence of the second part of article 3, article 8, parts one and two of article 55 of the Basic Law of Ukraine oblige the state to introduce at the legislative level such a legal mechanism for the realization of a person's right to judicial protection, which will provide procedural opportunities for real protection and restoration of violated rights and freedoms .KSU believes that the right to judicial protection, established by the first part of Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine, should be considered in connection with the basic principles of judicial procedure, determined by the prescriptions of the second part of Article 129 of the Constitution of Ukraine, and taking into account the right to a fair trial (a component of which is the obligation obligation of the state to comply with a court decision), guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights.
You may be interested in the following articles: lawyer consultation, lawyer consultation, analysis of documents, legal analysis of the situation, written consultation, verification of documents by a lawyer, lawyers, documents, lawyer's assistance online, lawyer online, legal opinion, legal opinion of a lawyer, lawyer online
The court stated that there is an unjustified interference with the debt collector's right to access to the court, since the person who paid the court fee for submitting a claim to the court and gained access to the court and achieved the adoption of a binding court decision in his favor must additionally (repeatedly) ) to pay a court fee for exercising judicial control over the execution of a court decision.
This indicates the absence of proper legal mechanisms for the implementation of the right to access to court, and also indicates a lack of real judicial control at the stage of execution of a court decision, as there is a complication in the practical implementation by a person of his right to access to court, which is a violation of the constitutional principles of judicial proceedings and principles civil procedural law.
In view of the above, taking into account the fact that a person, challenging the decision of the court of first instance, tries first of all to eliminate the consequences of the violation of his rights caused by the non-execution of the court decision, the Court indicated that the legislator did not act in accordance with the principles of justice, reasonableness, proportionality, ensuring a balance between interests the state in collecting the court fee and the interests of the applicant regarding access to justice.
The court came to the conclusion that the second part of Article 3, sub-paragraph 9 of paragraph 1 of the second part of Article 4 of the Law contradicts the first part of Article 8, the first and second parts of Article 55, Article 1291 of the Constitution of Ukraine.
Provisions of the Law recognized as unconstitutional in the specified aspect shall cease to be valid six months after the adoption of this Decision by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
The judge-rapporteur in this case is Galina Yurovska.
