The Higher Administrative Court Declared Hroisman Outside the Law

The Higher Administrative Court declared Hroisman outside the law

As is known, on 28 March citizens of Ukraine Mykola Tomenko and Dmytro Dobrodomov registered with the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine a lawsuit seeking to recognize as unlawful the inaction of the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Volodymyr Hroisman for not publishing the law adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 04.02.2016 year, Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine ‘On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2016 Year’ regarding the financing of vocational and technical education” in accordance with Article 94 of the Constitution of Ukraine. They also demanded that the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, V. Hroisman, be obliged to sign and officially publish this law in the official printed publication.

As Mykola Tomenko reported, he received a decision from the Higher Administrative Court stating that Judge Shved E.Yu. decided to return the claim to the plaintiffs on the grounds that the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine “is deprived of procedural ability to consider cases in which the defendant is another subject of state authority different from those listed in part 4 of Art. 18 and Arts. 1711 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine” (this refers to the jurisdiction of the Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine as a court of first instance over cases concerning “…appeals against acts, actions or inaction of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine, the High Council of Justice, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine recognized as constitutional according to the Decision of the Constitutional Court”).

“After the recent decisions of the Constitutional Court and the Central Election Commission, of course, one could no longer expect that this institution would follow current legislation, but I want to remind you that the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine and the articles referenced by the judge of the HASC clearly indicate that the defendant is the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. And according to Art. 88 of the Constitution of Ukraine, it is the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada who ‘represents the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in relations with other bodies of state power of Ukraine and bodies of power of other states’ (p. 4 of Art. 88), signs acts adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (p. 3 of Art. 88), etc.,” Mykola Tomenko noted.

Therefore, in his view, the decision made by the HASC concerning Volodymyr Hroisman effectively means that he has been declared outside the law.

“According to the logic of this decision, one cannot sue V. Hroisman as Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada and demand that he fulfill the Constitution, laws, and the powers vested in him as Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. I would not be surprised if the next decision of the HASC bans criticizing or mentioning the President and the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada without the court’s permission,” Tomenko said.

“By the way, the plaintiffs, needless to say, were not invited to the court, because, as is known, judicial bodies, the CEC, or other state institutions make decisions either at night or secretly,” Mykola Tomenko noted.

“The general conclusion in this situation is this: it is quite obvious that Ukraine’s judicial system is not subject to ‘re-education’; it can only be reformed by creating a fundamentally new judicial system,” Mykola Tomenko concluded.

tomenko.ua