CLPR: No reason why Klitschko couldn’t stand as presidential candidate
According to Yulia Kyrychenko, Constitutional Law specialist for the Centre for Legal and Political Reform believes that Vitaliy Klitschko does not need to worry about being prevented from registering as presidential candidate in 2015.
Kyrychenko was responding to the law very hastily passed last week. As reported, on Oct. 24, Speaker Rybak, without any discussion, called a vote in its second reading of a draft bill with amendments to the Tax Code. The relevant amendment to the Tax Code states that if a person pays taxes in another country, he can be considered a resident of the other country, which would therefore prevent him standing for president in Ukraine, since there is a 10-year residential requirement.
At a press conference on Oct. 29, Yulia Kyrychenko explained that the term “residence in Ukraine” used in the Constitution is not defined and unclear, leading to juridical difficulties in interpreting it.
Although not able to comment on a specific person’s particular circumstances, “from the point of view of law and constitutional law, there are no grounds for the leader of the opposition to fear being removed from the presidential elections”,
She noted that the constitutional norms had been interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights with respect to Melnychenko in 2002. In 2004 Melnychenko won his case against Ukraine , The court found (61) “taking into account the relevant domestic legislation and practice, that the requirement of residence inUkraine was not absolute and that the domestic authorities, in allowing or refusing registration of a particular candidate, were obliged to take into account his or her specific situation. The Court considers that neither the relevant legislation nor practice contained a direct eligibility requirement of “habitual” or “continuous” residence in the territory of Ukraine.”
Yulia Kyrychenko explains that in the present case we are dealing with a famous sportsman representing Ukraine. “In that case, I would say, there are no grounds for unreasonably restricting his rights to participate in the presidential elections”.