The Case of “Maidan” activists v. Nina Karpachova begins


On 29 January a preliminary hearing in a Kyiv administrative court was held with regard to the civil suit brought by “Maidan” Alliance activists Viktor Garbar and Oleksandr Severyn against the Verkhovna Rada, the Authorised Human Rights Representative of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (the Human Rights Ombudsperson) and the Speaker of Parliament.

The claimants believe that a number of serious infringements of the Law “On the Human Rights Ombudsperson” took place and are demanding that: the following all be declared in breach of this Law: :

  1. The inaction of the Verkhovna Rada from 5 June 2006 in not dismissing the Ombudsperson given her election as National Deputy;
  2. The Verkhovna Rada Resolution from 17 November 2006 ending Nina Karpachova’s term as Human Rights Ombudsperson early because of her having been elected National Deputy;
  3. The inaction of the Human Rights Ombudsperson (Nina Karpachova) in not handing in her resignation as National Deputy within 10 days of assuming her deputy mandate;
  4. The action of the Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada in putting forward the candidacy of National Deputy Nina Karpachova for the position of Human Rights Ombudsperson (in November 2006);
  5. The inaction of the Verkhovna Rada in not voting on the appointment of a Human Rights Ombudsperson during the legally established period (between 18.12.06 and 29.12.06)’
  6. The actions of the Verkhovna Rada in holding a vote on the appointment of Human Rights Ombudsperson late, on 8 February 2007;
  7. The Verkhovna Rada Resolution from 8 February 2007 proclaiming Nina Karpachova Human Rights Ombudsperson;
  8. The claimants are demanding that those involved in putting forward candidates for the post of Human Rights Ombudsperson be bound within 20 days of the coming into force of the Court’s ruling to enforce Article 6 of the Law “On the Human Rights Ombudsperson” [according to this voting for a new Ombudsperson should take place no earlier than 10 days, but no later than 20 days after the expiry of the period for proposing candidates.]

At the preliminary hearing, the respondents’ representatives denied any infringements at all, despite the fact that the dates clearly do not comply with the Law on the Human Rights Ombudsperson.

We will keep readers posted on the course of the civil proceedings.

An adaptation of the legalese original at

Recommend this post

forgot the password




send me a new password

on top