“The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left unchanged the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court, which was declared unlawful and canceled the Presidential Decree No. 79/2021 of February 26, 2021. This decree was removed by the chairman and judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Oleksandr Tupitsky from the exercise of powers. The decision made on October 2 has acquired the status of final and”, – WRITE ON: ua.news
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left unchanged the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court, which was declared unlawful and canceled the Presidential Decree No. 79/2021 of February 26, 2021. This decree was removed by the chairman and judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Oleksandr Tupitsky from the exercise of powers.
The decision, which was made on October 2, became final and is not subject to appeal. Thus, many years of judicial confrontation, which concerned the limits of powers of the President of Ukraine, independence of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the principle of separation of powers in Ukraine, was completed.
In 2020-2021, the President of Ukraine issued several decrees aimed at removing the chairman of the CCU Alexander Tupitsky and the cancellation of the decree on its appointment. These decrees became the subject of three separate court proceedings, in which the interests of Alexander Tupitsky were represented by the Leshchenko & Partners team.
Leshchenko & Partners ‘Lawyers’ position
The lawyer team formed a consistent legal position, based on the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine”. The claims were stated that:
Constitution of Ukraine does not provide for any powers of the President on temporary removal or cancellation of decrees on the appointment of judges of the Constitutional Court;
Subjects of Appointment of Judges of the Constitutional Court (President, Verkhovna Rada, Congress of Judges) have no right to interfere with the independence of the judiciary or use disciplinary or procedural measures of influence;
Such decrees undermine The principle of legal certaintywhich is part of the rule of law.
Judicial practice: three victories in three instances
All three presidential decrees were declared illegal and canceled by the courts:
Presidential Decree No. 607/2020 of December 29, 2020 (On the removal of Judge of the CCU of Tupitsky from the post for two months) – was canceled by the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court of December 13, 2022, left unchanged by the Decree of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of October 19, 2023 (final decision) in case No. 9901/43/21.
Presidential Decree No. 124/2021 of March 27, 2021 (On the cancellation of the Presidential Decree Viktor Yanukovych from 2013 on the appointment of the Tupitsky Judge of the CCU) – was canceled by the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court of July 14, 2021, left unchanged by the Decree of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of October 19, 2023 (final decision) in the case of 9901.
Presidential Decree No. 79/2021 of February 26, 2021 (on the re -removal of Judge Alexander Tupitsky) – was canceled by the decision of the Cassation Administrative Court as part of the Supreme Court of May 05, 2025, left unchanged by the Decree of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of October 2, 2025 (final decision) in case No. 9901/57/21.
“This solution is the culmination of many years of struggle for law and constitutionality, and this case has become a fundamental marker for the entire legal system. Due to the professional work of Leshchenko & Partners lawyers, a clear strategy, a deep analysis of the legislation and the proper evidence, the unlawfulness of the President of Ukraine was being defended. constitutional jurisdiction, and the principle of separation of powers in a democratic state.
Alexander Leshchenko, managing partner
Legal consequences of the case
The decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court is systematic for the Ukrainian legal system, since the latter confirms the independence of constitutional jurisdiction from the subjects of appointment (President of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the Congress of Judges) and the inability to go beyond the limits of the powers granted by the Constitution.
