DECISION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE

of October 3, 1997 No. 4-zp

On case on the constitutional address of Barabash Alexander Leonidovich of rather official interpretation of part five of Article 94 and article 160 of the Constitution of Ukraine (case on enforcement of the Constitution of Ukraine)

Case N18/183-97

NAME OF UKRAINE

Constitutional court of Ukraine as a part of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine:

Timchenka Ivana Artemyevich - the chairman,

Voznyuk Vladimir Denisovich,

Evgrafov Pavel Borisovich,

Kozyubra Nikolay Ivanovich,

Kostitsky Mikhail Vasilyevich,

Malinnikova Lyudmila Fiodorovna,

Martynenk Pyotr Fedorovich,

Mironenk Alexander Nikolaevich,

Nemchenk Vasily Ivanovich,

Selivon Nikolay Fedosovich,

Victor Egorovich's buffoons,

Silent Vladimir Pavlovich,

Chubar Lyudmila Panteleevna,

Shapoval Vladimir Nikolaevich,

Yatsenk Stanislav Sergeyevich,

being guided by article 150 of the Constitution of Ukraine, item 4 of article 13 of the Law of Ukraine "About the Constitutional Court of Ukraine", considered at plenary meeting in written hearing case on official interpretation of part five of Article 94 and article 160 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

The constitutional address of Barabash Alexander Leonidovich became pretext for consideration of the case, according to article 42 of the Law of Ukraine "About the Constitutional Court of Ukraine".

Availability of ambiguous application of provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine the Supreme Court of Ukraine became the basis for consideration of the case, according to article 94 of the Law of Ukraine "About the Constitutional Court of Ukraine", that, according to the person of law on the constitutional address, led to violation of its constitutional rights and freedoms.

In the constitutional address Barabash O. L. asks to give official interpretation of part one of Article 58, to part five of Article 94 and article 160 of the Constitution of Ukraine concerning the moment of enforcement of the Constitution of Ukraine.

Having heard the judge-speaker Shapoval V. M. and having analyzed case papers according to the constitutional address of Barabash O. L., the Constitutional Court of Ukraine established:

1. In June, 1996 Barabash O. L. appealed to the Supreme Court of Ukraine with the claim to the decision of Central Election Commission at elections of People's Deputies of Ukraine to which to it it was refused introduction on de novo review of the address concerning recognition invalid repeated elections of the People's Deputy of Ukraine.

Having considered materials of this claim, the judge of the Supreme Court of Ukraine the resolution of July 8, 1996 refused its acceptance as such which is not subject to consideration in courts.

Without agreeing with motives of refusal, Barabash O. L. made the complaint according to the procedure of supervision. He claimed that the motives of refusal given in the resolution in adoption of the claim in consideration do not answer contents of the Constitution of Ukraine which is already operating on the date of the resolution of the specified resolution. Barabash O. L. insisted that the restrictive nature of the right to judicial appeal of actions and decisions of Central Election Commission established by the current legislation in essence at elections of People's Deputies of Ukraine does not answer number of provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, in particular to provision of its Article 55.

In the reply of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of September 26, 1996 it was specified that bases for protesting of the relevant resolution and grievance settlement of Barabash O. L. it is not established. At the same time it was noted that for the period of pronouncement of the judge's ruling of the Supreme Court of Ukraine the Constitution of Ukraine was not effective. Objecting to such line item, Barabash O. L. made the repeated complaint according to the procedure of supervision. In the reply of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of November 12, 1996 it was specified that the constitutional regulations could not be applied in permission of question of adoption of the corresponding claim because the Constitution of Ukraine was published on July 1Z, 1996. At the same time it was made a reference to content of part five of article 94 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

The specified answers concerning enforcement of the Constitution of Ukraine confirm ambiguity of application of its separate regulations by the Supreme Court of Ukraine that caused opening of the constitutional implementation on case on the constitutional address of Barabash O. L. For the sake of the solution of such ambiguity there was need for official interpretation of part five of Article 94 and article 160 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

The constitutional court of Ukraine recognized inexpedient to directly connect subject of official interpretation with content of part one of article 58 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Besides official interpretation of the relevant provision of the Constitution of Ukraine contains the Solution of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of May 13, 1997 on the case of official interpretation of Articles 58, of 78, of 79, of 81 Constitution of Ukraine and Articles 243-21, 243-22, 243-25 of the Code of civil procedure of Ukraine (case concerning incompatibility of the deputy mandate).

Disclaimer! This text was translated by AI translator and is not a valid juridical document. No warranty. No claim. More info