search  
print
08.09.2005

A CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF PARAGRAPH 7 OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE VERKHOVNA RADA OF UKRAINE «ON THE STABILIZATION OF THE POLITICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATION IN UKRAINE AND PREVENTION OF ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS AND SEPARATIST MOVES, PLACING IN JEOPARDY THE SOVEREIGNTY AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF UKRAINE» OF 1 DECEMBER 2004

   

In connection with the decision taken by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine with regard to the adoption of a resolution of no confidence in the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and with the statement by the Prime Minister of Ukraine that he does not recognize this decision, since he considers that it does not comply with the demands of the Constitution of Ukraine, we, being specialists in the field of Ukrainian constitutional law, have carried out an unbiased constitutional and legal analysis of the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and have reached the following conclusions:

1. In accordance with Part 2 of Article 113 of the Constitution of Ukraine «The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is responsible to the President of Ukraine and is under the control of and accountable to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine within the limits envisaged in Articles 85 and 87 of the Constitution of Ukraine». This constitutional provision means that Parliament is empowered to exercise control over the activity of the government. This control can take the following forms: hearing the report on the course of the implementation by the Cabinet of Ministers of the State Budget of Ukraine (Paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Article 85 of the Constitution of Ukraine), discussion of the results of the consideration by the government of a State Deputy’s inquiry to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (in accordance with Article 86 of the Constitution), the holding of parliamentary hearings in order to examine the state of implementation by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of the Constitution of Ukraine, laws of Ukraine, resolutions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (Paragraph 1 of the Regulations on holding parliamentary hearings in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine from 11 December 2003), the holding of hearings in the committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (Regulations on holding hearings in the committees of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine from 11 December 2003) etc.

Depending on the results of parliamentary supervision over the activity of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Parliament has the right to take various decisions, including, in accordance with Part 1 of Article 87 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the constitutional right to adopt a resolution of no confidence in the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which, in accordance with Part 4 of Article 115 of the Constitution of Ukraine, «results in the resignation of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine».

That is, Parliament has the constitutional right to dismiss the government. This right constitutes one of the main elements of the system of «restraints and counterbalances», which is designed to ensure the effective functioning of the mechanism of implementing State power in a modern democratic country, to make it impossible for one branch of power to dominate another, to not allow usurpation of power and to ensure mutual control between the various branches of State power.

At the same time, in order to ensure stability of the activity of the government, the Constitution of Ukraine does not permit the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to consider the issue of responsibility of the government «within one year after the approval of the Program of Activity of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine « (Part 2 of Article 87 of the Constitution of Ukraine). However a comparison of the provisions of Parts 1 and 2 of Article 87 of the Constitution of Ukraine and an analysis of their content make it possible to conclude that the Program of activity of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which should give the strategic direction and priorities for the development of the State in the coming years can only be confirmed once during the entire period of its functioning, since, firstly, the State Budget of Ukraine serves as an annual program of the activities of the government, and, secondly, in any case, the annual adoption of a new Program of Activity would make it impossible for parliament to bring a resolution of no confidence in the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, would effectively lead to a ‘blocking’ of the force of the Constitution of Ukraine in this area and would deprive the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of such an important form of parliamentary control.

2. Moreover, in accordance with the Temporary Regulations regarding the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, confirmed by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine from 5 June 2000 № 915 «The planning of the work of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is carriedon the basis of suggestions from central and local bodies of executive power by means of a Program of activity of the Cabinet ofMinisters of Ukraine for the period of its authority, of an annual State program for the economic and social development of Ukraine, of other State programs and legislative acts the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. (Paragraph 1 of Section 2 of the Temporary Regulations regarding the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine).

Despite the fact that the period of authority of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is not actually defined in the Constitution of Ukraine, it directly follows from a whole series of constitutional norms. In particular, in accordance with Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 106 and Parts 2 and 3 of Article 114 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine appoints the Prime Minister of Ukraine with the consent of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, and then appoints, on the submission of the Prime Minister of Ukraine, members of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. In accordance with Part 1 of Article 115 of the Constitution of Ukraine « The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine tenders its resignation to the newly-elected President of Ukraine. «An analysis of these provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine demonstrate that, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, the period of authority of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine is the term of office of the President of Ukraine, for the duration of which term the Cabinet of Ministers is formed.

The term of office of the President of Ukraine is directly stated in Part 1 of Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine as being five years. Thus, the term of authority of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, on condition that its authority is not suspended soon in accordance with the Constitution of Ukraine, is also for a period of five years.

In this way, on the basis of an analysis of the above-mentioned norms of the Constitution of Ukraine, as well as of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine from 5 June 2000 № 915, one may conclude that the Program of Activity of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, is to be adopted once for the entire duration of the Cabinet’s authority. This does not exclude the possibility of introducing certain clarification, amendments or addenda, however their introduction cannot be interpreted as the adoption of a new Program of Activity of the government.

3. A comparative legal analysis of the content of the Program of Activity of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine «Openness, effectiveness, Achieving Results» approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 17 April 2003, and the Program of Activity of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine «Consistency, Effectiveness, Responsibility», approved by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 16 March 2004 shows that in their structure, the names of the structural parts, as well as in their content, these are practically one and the same Program of Activity of the Government, with only some clarifying points and addenda, which in their entirety do not change the strategic direction of the work of the Cabinet of Ministers. There is an indication of this in the actual Program: «Consistency, Effectiveness, Responsibility»: «...In the Program the main goals and tasks involved with forming a socially effective, politically responsible power structure and the institutes of civic society…» etc are specified. Therefore, the approval by the Verkhovna Rada on 16 March 2004 of the effectively refined Program of Activity of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine does not deprive the Verkhovna Rada of the right to adopt a resolution of no confidence in the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine even without first annulling its Resolution on its approval.

In addition, an analysis of the goals and the content of the last Program of Activity of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine given the latest events in the political, social and economic life of Ukraine show that the government has not only failed to ensure their fulfillment, but has been playing a waiting game, and as a result, has on numerous occasions demonstrated its total incapacity.

4. However the most cogent argument in favor of recognizing the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada on the dismissal of the government as fully complying with the Constitution of Ukraine is that, in conditions of deep political crisis, when the government has failed to take appropriate measures to ensure the human rights and freedoms of citizens in the process of preparing and holding the 2004 Presidential elections and has permitted significant squandering of State revenue (and having spent huge amounts of taxpayers’ money, it still could not succeed in establishing the will of the voters), it has shown total passiveness and inactivity in situations where it was obliged to act decisively and consistently, thus directly violating the provisions of Paragraphs 1,2,3, 7 and 9 of Article 116 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The government has forfeited the trust both of Parliament and of society, which gives all grounds for considering that Ukraine is facing a government crisis. Therefore to demand from this government that it respond to the situation which has developed appropriately is much like demanding from a paraplegic that he get up from his bed and move more quickly. In exceptional circumstances, when the vast majority of state bodies simply avoid carrying out the duties they have been empowered to fulfill, only Parliament retains the capability and potential for taking decisive action, in particular thanks to the sensible position taken by the Head of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

Therefore, Paragraph 7 of the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine «On the stabilization of the political and socio-economic situation in Ukraine and prevention of anti-Constitutional actions and separatist moves, placing in jeopardy the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine» of 1 December 2004 is in total compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine and is mandatory for the Cabinet of Ministers.

Viktor Kolisnyk, Doctor of Law

Fedir Venislavsky, Candidate of Law

Viktor Kychun, Candidate of Law

Pavlo Lyubchenko, Candidate of Law

3 December 2004

THE SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE


DECISION

IN THE NAME OF UKRAINE

3 December 2004 

Kyiv

The Court chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine consisting of

Chairman:

A.G. Yarema

Judges:

M. I. Baliuk

V.M. Barsukova

A. V. Gnatenko

L. I. Grygoryeva

V. I. Gumenyuk

A. O. Didkivsky

I. P. Dombrovsky

V.V. Krivenko

N.P. Lyashchenko

V.L. Marynchenko

P.V. Pantaliyenko

M.V. Patryuk

O.I. Potylchak

Y.V. Prokopchuk

M.P. Pshonka

I.L. Samsin

Y.L. Senin

O.O. Terletsky

V.M. Shabunin

Secretaries: I. Prokopenko and V. Skachko;

with the participation of M. Katerynchuk, representative with special authority of Presidential candidate V. Yushchenko in the single all-Ukrainian electoral constituency, and representatives of Presidential candidate V. Yush­chenko: S. Kustova, R. Zvarych, O. Reznikov, M. Poludionny, S. Vlasenko, Yu. Kar­mazin and Yu. Kliuchkovsky;

representatives of the Central Election Commission: V. Bondyk, Yu. Don­chenko, I. Kachur, M. Okhendovskiy;

representatives of the interested party – Presidential candidate V. Yanuko­vich: O. Lukash, S. Gavrish, B. Kharchenko, E. Yevgrafova and Y. Abramenko,

having considered at a court hearing the case based on a complaint from Mykola Katerynchuk, representative with special authority of Presidential candidate V. Yushchenko in the single all-Ukrainian electoral constituency, about the inaction of the Central Election Commission, the actions taken to establish the final results of the second round of the Ukrainian Presidential elections of 21 November 2004 and the decision to declare Viktor Yanukovich President of Ukraine,

IT WAS ASCERTAINED THAT:

M. Katerynchuk, representative with special authority of Presidential candidate V. Yushchenko in the single all-Ukrainian electoral constituency appealed to the Supreme Court of Ukraine with the above-mentioned complaint in which he called for the following:

1. The actions of the Central Election Commission in establishing the final results of the second round of Ukrainian Presidential elections to be declared illegal, and the protocol of the Central Election Commission on the results of the second round of voting in the elections for President of Ukraine dated 24 November 2004 to be declared invalid; The Resolution of the Central Election Commission of 24 November 2004 № 1264 «On the Results of the Ukrainian Presidential elections of 21 November 2004 and the election of President of Ukraine» to be annulled as being illegal.

2. The Resolution of the Central Election Commission dated 24 November 2004 № 1265 «On publishing the results of the Ukrainian Presidential elections» to be annulled as being illegal.

3. To be established that the facts confirming systematic and grave violations of the basis and principles of the election process during the second round of Ukrainian Presidential elections on 21 November 2004 were such as to render impossible a reliable assessment of the will of the voters in the single all-Ukrainian electoral constituency for the Ukrainian Presidential elections.

4. The results of the second round of voting in the Ukrainian Presidential elections on 21 November 2004 in the single all-Ukrainian electoral constituency for the Ukrainian Presidential elections to be declared invalid.

5. The Candidate who, according to the vote count from the round of voting on 31 October 2004 gained the largest number of votes, to be declared elected President of Ukraine.

These demands, supported in the court hearing by the claimant and representative of the candidate to the post of President of Ukraine, V.A. Yushchenko, are substantiated by references to systematic and grave violations of the basis and principles of the election process during the second round of Ukrainian Presidential elections on 21 November 2004, and also to the contravention by the Central Election Commission of the requirements of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections» in determining the results of the Presidential elections.

The representatives of the Central Election Commission, as well as the representatives of the interested party, rejecting the claims made, have asserted that the violations of election legislation, which were committed during the second round of Presidential elections, did not influence and could not influence the results of the elections, and that in determining the results of the Ukrainian Presidential elections, the Central Election Commission did not contravene current legislation.

Having listened to the explanations of the parties to the case, and having examined other evidence, the Court considers that the claim should be partially satisfied on the following grounds.

On 21 November 2004 the second round of the Ukrainian Presidential elections was held.

On 24 November 2004 the Central Election Commission compiled a protocol on the results of the second round of the Ukrainian Presidential elections and passed Resolutions № 1264 «On the Results of the Ukrainian Presidential elections of 21 November 2004 and the election of President of Ukraine» and № 1265 «On publishing the results of the Ukrainian Presidential elections».

When determining the results of the second round of voting on the day of the Presidential elections, the Central Election Commission did not in full session scrutinize the protocols of the Territorial Electoral Commission on the results of voting on the territory of the given Territorial Electoral Districts, did not check their reliability, accuracy or comprehensiveness, nor other documents listed in Part 6 of Article 83 of the Law «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections».

Before determining the results of the second round of voting on the day of the Presidential elections, the Central Election Commission did not consider appeals and complaints regarding violations by Territorial Electoral Commissions of the procedure for determining the results of the voting on the territory of the Territorial Electoral Districts, nor decisions taken by the Territorial Electoral Commissions as a result of their review.

At the time when the Central Election Commission announced the results of the second round of voting in the Ukrainian Presidential elections, the courts had not finished their review of complaints filed at the proper time about the inaction, the actions or decisions of Territorial Electoral Commissions, alleged to have occurred during the gathering of the results of the voting on the territory of the Territorial Electoral Districts, nor had the period allowed for review of these complaints expired.

Under such circumstances the actions and decisions of the Central Election Commission contravene the requirements of Articles 2,10, 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Central Election Commission», Articles 25, 28, 83, 84, 86, 93, 94, and 96 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections» and are illegal. In connection with this, the resolutions passed by the Central Election Commission shall be annulled.

The Court has also determined that during the second round of voting the following violations of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections» were committed:

– the compilation and checking of voter lists was carried out with violations of the requirements of Article 34; the same person was included on the lists several times, and there were also people on the lists who did not have the right to vote;

– the preparation, registration, issue and use of absent ballots were carried out with violations of the requirements of Article 33, and without proper control from the Central Election Commission;

– election campaigning with the use of the mass media was carried out without adherence to the principle of equal opportunities and in contravention of procedure, set out in this Law; the prohibition on involvement in election campaigning of State executive bodies and bodies of local self-government, their officials and functions was not complied with; there were cases of unlawful interference in the election process;

– there were violations of the requirements of Articles 23, 24 and 85 regarding the composition of election commissions;

– there were violations of the requirements of Articles 68, 69 and 70 with regard to the participation in the election process of official observers;

– there were violations of the requirements of Articles 77 in holding voting outside polling areas;

– protocols of district election commissions on the results of the vote count were compiled without compliance with the requirements of Article 79;

– the transportation of documents to the Territorial Electoral Commissions was carried out with violations of Article 81.

The circumstances listed give grounds for concluding that the violations of the principles of election law, set out in Articles 38, 71 and 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine, and the principles of election law, defined in Part 2 of Article 11 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections», make it impossible to reliably determine the results of the actual expression of the will of the voters in the single all-Ukrainian electoral constituency.

In determining the means for restoring the infringed rights and legitimate interests of the subjects of the election process, the Court is guided by Article 98 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections», where the subject of the review of the complaint, having established that the decisions, actions or inaction of the subject of the complaint do not comply with legislation on the elections of President of Ukraine, satisfies the complaints, annuls the resolution fully or partially, declares the actions or inaction illegal, obliges the subject of the complaint to satisfy the demands of the claimant or by other means restores the violated rights and legitimate interests of the subjects of the election process.

The means of defending violated rights suggested by the claimant, being to declare the candidate who gained the largest number of votes in the round on 31 October 2004 President of Ukraine, cannot be applied, since, in accordance with Part 3 of Article 84 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections», to be declared President of Ukraine, a candidate must have received more than half of the votes cast, and none of the candidates gained this number of votes.

Taking into account the impossibility of reliably determining the results of the actual expression of the will of the voters in the single all-Ukrainian electoral constituency by means of a recount of the second round of voting, and that the second round held on 21 November 2004 did not change the status of the candidates who, according to the vote count for the round of voting on 31 October 2004, received the greatest number of votes, the Court considers it necessary to restore the rights of the participants in the election process by means of an electoral re-run to be held in accordance with the regulations defined in Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections».

Guided by Articles 8, 71, 103, 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 98 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections», Articles 11, 24310 24320 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, The Court chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine

HAS RESOLVED:

To partially satisfy the complaint from Mykola Katerynchuk, representative with special authority of Presidential candidate V. Yushchenko in the single all-Ukrainian electoral constituency, about the decisions, actions and inaction of the Central Election Commission.

To declare the actions of the Central Election Commission in establishing the final results of the second round of Ukrainian Presidential elections, and the protocol on the results of the second round of Ukrainian Presidential elections dated 24 November 2004 illegal.

To annul the Resolution of the Central Election Commission of 24 November 2004 № 1264 «On the Results of the Ukrainian Presidential elections of 21 November 2004 and the election of President of Ukraine».

To annul the Resolution of the Central Election Commission dated 24 November 2004 1265 «On publishing the results of the Ukrainian Presidential elections».

To oblige the Central Election Commission to call a re-run of the voting in the elections for President of Ukraine within the timescale set out in Part 1 of Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections», taken as beginning on 5 December 2004. To hold the re-run in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections».

To reject the other demands.

This decision is final and not subject to appeal.

Chairman:

A.G. Yarema

Judges:

M. I. Baliuk

V.M. Barsukova

A. V. Gnatenko

L. I. Grygoryeva

V. I. Gumenyuk

A. O. Didkivsky

I. P. Dombrovsky

V.V. Krivenko

N.P. Lyashchenko

V.L. Marynchenko

P.V. Pantaliyenko

M.V. Patryuk

O.I. Potylchak

Y.V. Prokopchuk

M.P. Pshonka

I.L. Samsin

Y.L. Senin

O.O. Terletsky

V.M. Shabunin

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT OF UKRAINE


SPECIAL RESOLUTION

3 December 2004

Kyiv

The Court chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Ukraine consisting of

Chairman:

A.G. Yarema

Judges:

M. I. Baliuk

V.M. Barsukova

A. V. Gnatenko

L. I. Grygoryeva

V. I. Gumenyuk

A. O. Didkivsky

I. P. Dombrovsky

V.V. Krivenko

N.P. Lyashchenko

V.L. Marynchenko

P.V. Pantaliyenko

M.V. Patryuk

O.I. Potylchak

Y.V. Prokopchuk

M.P. Pshonka

I.L. Samsin

Y.L. Senin

O.O. Terletsky

V.M. Shabunin

secretaries: I. Prokopenko and V. Skachko;

having considered at an open court hearing the case based on a complaint from Mykola Dmitrovych Katerynchuk, representative with special authority of Presidential candidate Viktor Andriyevych Yushchenko in the single all-Ukrainian electoral constituency, about the decisions, actions and inaction of the Central Election Commission (hereafter CEC) in determining the results of the second round of voting in the elections for President of Ukraine on 21 November 2004,

HAS RESOLVED:

By decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 3 December 2004 to partially satisfy the complaint of Mykola Dmitrovych Katerynchuk, representative with special authority of Presidential candidate Viktor Andriyevych Yushchenko in the single all-Ukrainian electoral constituency, about the decisions, actions and inaction of the CEC in establishing the final results of the second round of voting in the elections for President of Ukraine on 21 November 2004.

The Court has decided to declare the actions of the Central Election Commission in establishing the final results of the second round of voting in the elections for President of Ukraine on 21 November 2004, and in compiling a protocol on the results of the second round of voting in the elections for President of Ukraine dated 24 November 2004 illegal.

The Resolution of the Central Election Commission of 24 November 2004 № 1264 «On the Results of the Ukrainian Presidential elections of 21 November 2004 and the election of President of Ukraine» has been annulled.

The Resolution of the Central Election Commission dated 24 November 2004 № 1265 «On publishing the results of the Ukrainian Presidential elections» has been annulled.

The Central Election Commission is obliged to call a re-run of the voting in the elections for President of Ukraine within the timescale set out in Part 1 of Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections», taken as beginning on 5 December 2004. To hold the re-run in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections».

The other demands have been rejected.

The Court has determined that during the second round of the Ukrainian Presidential elections there were numerous violations of the fundamental basis and principles of the election process, defined in Articles 38, 69 and 71 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Articles 2, 3, 6, 9, 11 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections», as a result of which it was impossible to reliably determine the results of the actual expression of the will of the voters in the single all-Ukrainian electoral constituency. A major part of the violations were committed by the CEC itself, by other participants in the election process or by bodies of State power as a result of the passive behavior of the CEC and its members.

In particular, questions which should have been considered by the CEC collectively were effectively considered by individual members and were not tabled at the sessions. It was precisely in this way that the question about establishing the final results of the second round of voting in the elections for the President of Ukraine on 21 November 2004 was decided, when, in violation of the requirements of Part 1 of Articile 84 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections», the CEC only voted on approving the protocol which had been compiled without proper checking of information by all members of the Commission, and without the latter having seen the protocols of the Territorial Electoral Commissions.

It has been established that during the second round there were mass violations of the electoral rights of all participants in the election process through the uncontrolled use of absentee ballots, with coercion exerted on employees of enterprises, institutions and organizations, including State employees, to vote using absentee ballots; there were organized movements of large groups of voters in order to vote from one district to another; State executive bodies were involved in these movements and in the use of absentee ballots. The occurrence and widespread nature of these violations was reported during the elections by the Mass Media, official observers and voters. The topicality of this issue was confirmed by the adoption before the second round by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of amendments to the current Law of Ukraine «On the Ukrainian Presidential elections».

However, in contravention of the requirements of Articles 16 and 17 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Central Election Commission», the CEC basically failed to fulfill its intended role in controlling the course of the election process and ensuring citizens’ voting rights, etc

There was a grave violation of the principle of legality seen in the failure by the CEC to implement the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of 16 November obliging the CEC to establish the final results of the voting in Territorial Electoral District № 100.

The above-mentioned demonstrates that the Central Election Commission violated the principle of the rule of law, of legality, objectivity, competence, professionalism, collegiality in review and resolution of questions, well-founded­ness in the taking of decisions, openness and publicity, as set out in Part 2 of Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Central Election Commission»

Furthermore, during the process of court review, the Court received a written statement from the head of an institution which developed program software for the CEC and was responsible for its implementation during the election and the vote count. The letter states that, on the instruction of the head of the CEC access codes to the system were removed and given to outside individuals who could manipulate the results and falsify them, later inputting this data into the original protocols.

The Court Chamber deems it necessary to inform the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine and the General Prosecutor of Ukraine about the violations of legislation discovered, in order to react with the measures envisaged by law.

Guided by Article 235 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Court Chamber

HAS RESOLVED:

To send a copy of this Resolution to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine and the General Prosecutor of Ukraine for their information and appropriate response.

This Resolution is not subject to appeal.

Chairman:

A.G. Yarema

Judges:

M. I. Baliuk

V.M. Barsukova

A. V. Gnatenko

L. I. Grygoryeva

V. I. Gumenyuk

A. O. Didkivsky

I. P. Dombrovsky

V.V. Krivenko

N.P. Lyashchenko

V.L. Marynchenko

P.V. Pantaliyenko

M.V. Patryuk

O.I. Potylchak

Y.V. Prokopchuk

M.P. Pshonka

I.L. Samsin

Y.L. Senin

O.O. Terletsky

V.M. Shabunin

Recommend this post
X




forgot the password

registration

X

X

send me a new password


on top