Naukovi Novyny, Vol 2, Issue 6, June 25, 2020
Jurisprudence and usurpation
Jurisprudence and usurpation
D. Demydenko (editor)
D. Demydenko (editor)
In 2004, the Constitutional Court (CC) of Ukraїna ruled (document № 14-рп/2004 [1]) on the inconsistency with the Constitution of Ukraїna of the provisions of the that time law "On Higher Education" on the age limit of a candidate for the position of head of a higher education institution of the third or fourth level of accreditation (to which belong all significant higher education institutions), which at that time was 65 years. The motivation for the ruling was based on the Constitution's provision on the "right to work" and the alleged discriminatory restrictions on the age of candidates. This ruling contradicts the basic principles of jurisprudence and logic, as the above-mentioned norm did not cancel the right to work for these people, and specific requirements for certain positions and age restrictions exist and will exist in the legislation (see separate opinion of Judge Shapoval V.M. at the end of the decision [1]). In addition, this decision was clearly motivated by the avaricious intentions of the initiators of the relevant application to the Constitutional Court regarding the unconstitutionality of the above-mentioned provision, which consisted in the desire to retain their positions by certain persons who at that time reached or were reaching the age of 65 and could not become candidates for the positions due to reaching the candidate age limit.
In 2004, the Constitutional Court (CC) of Ukraїna ruled (document № 14-рп/2004 [1]) on the inconsistency with the Constitution of Ukraїna of the provisions of the that time law "On Higher Education" on the age limit of a candidate for the position of head of a higher education institution of the third or fourth level of accreditation (to which belong all significant higher education institutions), which at that time was 65 years. The motivation for the ruling was based on the Constitution's provision on the "right to work" and the alleged discriminatory restrictions on the age of candidates. This ruling contradicts the basic principles of jurisprudence and logic, as the above-mentioned norm did not cancel the right to work for these people, and specific requirements for certain positions and age restrictions exist and will exist in the legislation (see separate opinion of Judge Shapoval V.M. at the end of the decision [1]). In addition, this decision was clearly motivated by the avaricious intentions of the initiators of the relevant application to the Constitutional Court regarding the unconstitutionality of the above-mentioned provision, which consisted in the desire to retain their positions by certain persons who at that time reached or were reaching the age of 65 and could not become candidates for the positions due to reaching the candidate age limit.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court slowed down the reforms not only in education but also in science, due to the impossibility, due to it, of introducing a norm on the age limit in the new laws “On Higher Education” and “On Science and Science-Engineering Activities”. Because of it, the leadership in these areas consists mainly of Soviet style managers of the stagnation era in the USSR, or the staff "educated" by them, which largely inhibit significant progressive changes in universities and research institutes. That is, this ruling led to the usurpation of power in many universities and institutions of academies of science by stagnant managers, who mostly only imitate both the educational and scientific process.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court slowed down the reforms not only in education but also in science, due to the impossibility, due to it, of introducing a norm on the age limit in the new laws “On Higher Education” and “On Science and Science-Engineering Activities”. Because of it, the leadership in these areas consists mainly of Soviet style managers of the stagnation era in the USSR, or the staff "educated" by them, which largely inhibit significant progressive changes in universities and research institutes. That is, this ruling led to the usurpation of power in many universities and institutions of academies of science by stagnant managers, who mostly only imitate both the educational and scientific process.
Another example of a manipulative ruling of the Constitutional Court is the abolition of the rule on liability for illicit enrichment (№ 1-р/2019 [2]) again, apparently with the presence of avaricious motivation of the initiators of the relevant submission.
Another example of a manipulative ruling of the Constitutional Court is the abolition of the rule on liability for illicit enrichment (№ 1-р/2019 [2]) again, apparently with the presence of avaricious motivation of the initiators of the relevant submission.
This month, the Constitutional Court came to the usurpation and elimination of important mechanisms of control of the judiciary system.
This month, the Constitutional Court came to the usurpation and elimination of important mechanisms of control of the judiciary system.
Namely, they came to the abolition of an important, albeit not very practically developed, safeguard against corruption in the hyper corrupt judicial system of Ukraїna - the Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraїna "Making knowingly unjust sentence, decision, ruling or resolution by a judge (judges)." The ruling of the Constitutional Court КС № 7-р/2020 of June 11, 2020 [3] declared the above-mentioned article of the Criminal Code unconstitutional. Which, of course, opens up new opportunities for the development of the shadow business of judges on court decisions. The avaricious motivation for this decision is also obvious.
Namely, they came to the abolition of an important, albeit not very practically developed, safeguard against corruption in the hyper corrupt judicial system of Ukraїna - the Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraїna "Making knowingly unjust sentence, decision, ruling or resolution by a judge (judges)." The ruling of the Constitutional Court КС № 7-р/2020 of June 11, 2020 [3] declared the above-mentioned article of the Criminal Code unconstitutional. Which, of course, opens up new opportunities for the development of the shadow business of judges on court decisions. The avaricious motivation for this decision is also obvious.
It is difficult to come up with a simple solution to the problems of the judiciary system in Ukraїna. An obvious, but difficult, solution to these and other problems in Ukraїnian law is constitutional reform. Ukraїna needs a new Constitution composed not by post-Soviet officials, but by new generations, guided in life mainly by common sense, not by dogmas. The presence of the Constitutional Court in the modern Constitution of Ukraїna, in my opinion, contradicts common sense, as the compliance with the Constitution of the legislative acts and amendments to them should be determined before their adoption, not after.
It is difficult to come up with a simple solution to the problems of the judiciary system in Ukraїna. An obvious, but difficult, solution to these and other problems in Ukraїnian law is constitutional reform. Ukraїna needs a new Constitution composed not by post-Soviet officials, but by new generations, guided in life mainly by common sense, not by dogmas. The presence of the Constitutional Court in the modern Constitution of Ukraїna, in my opinion, contradicts common sense, as the compliance with the Constitution of the legislative acts and amendments to them should be determined before their adoption, not after.
Used sources:
Used sources:
1. RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAЇNA N 14-рп/2004 (https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v014p710-04)
1. RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAЇNA N 14-рп/2004 (https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v014p710-04)
2. RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAЇNA № 1-р/2019 (https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v001p710-19#Text)
2. RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAЇNA № 1-р/2019 (https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v001p710-19#Text)
3. RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAЇNA № 7-р/2020 (https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v007p710-20#Text)
3. RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAЇNA № 7-р/2020 (https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v007p710-20#Text)