Today, on November 13, the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Legal Policy considered draft laws aimed at resolving the constitutional crisis. In fact, the Committee did not recommend the Parliament to consider any of these draft laws during the session. The Committee decided only to include these draft laws on the Rada’s agenda and to continue their consideration.
The draft law 4311, which proposed to establish the authority of the court subject to the appointment of 17 out of 18 judges to the court, was submitted to the Committee for consideration. As of today, 15 judges have been appointed to the CCU.
Moreover, the Committee considered the draft law 4319, which proposes to increase number of votes from 10 to 12 judges that are necessary for decision-making and need to approve of rules of procedure of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine by the law.
The Committee was able to conduct only preliminary consideration of these draft laws and recommend their inclusion on the agenda but did not recommend them for consideration even in the first reading.
Instead, the Committee made the decision to announce new competition for the position of the judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. At the same time, updated competition procedures are not foreseen.
“The Verkhovna Rada has not taken any single step to solve the constitutional crisis. After all, the main and primary solution to this crisis is to block the work of the Constitutional Court, which continues to be the threat to all reforms under consideration and is the condition for Ukraine’s cooperation with the West. This includes the High Anti-Corruption Court, illicit enrichment, banking and land reforms”, commented Vitaliy Shabunin, Head of the Board at the AntAC.
It should be noted that Members of Parliament from Batkivshchyna Sergiy Vlasenko, European Solidarity Ruslan Knyazevych and Opposition Platform For Life Vasyl Nimchenko categorically opposed these draft laws at the meeting of the Committee.
We should remind that on October 27 judges of the Constitutional court actually demolished e-declaration from the legislation. In particular, the Constitutional Court closed the public register of declarations, cancelled criminal responsibility for lying in declarations, and disciplinary and administrative responsibilities became impossible for practical application. The Constitutional Court also cancelled control over declarations and conflicts of interest. More about the decision and its consequences here.