Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
⬆️ And the main question here is: why, after the dismissal of the Prosecutor General, did the statutorily prescribed procedure not take effect, under which his duties are to be performed temporarily by the first deputy, and in his absence — by one of the deputies?
Separately, I informed European institutions that the question of the legality of Kovalskyi’s appointment already has quite concrete procedural consequences. 18 in September I filed a report regarding possible criminal offenses by Member of Parliament Serhii Labaziuk. Under the law, information concerning a Member of Parliament is entered into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations by the Prosecutor General or the person performing his duties. To date I still have not received either an extract from the Unified Register, or a criminal proceeding number, or confirmation that the information was entered.
22 in September I filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court regarding Decree No. 946/2026.
And on 23 September information about the disputed appointment of Kovalskyi and its possible procedural consequences was already officially sent to key EU institutions and the Council of Europe.
So now the question of the legality of this appointment is not only before the Supreme Court. It has already been raised at the level of European institutions, from which I expect a proper legal and institutional assessment.
#Хмельницький
#Хмельниччина
#НовиниХмельниччини
#АнтонКовальський
Telegram publication
