Holy Grail: Why does any power want to get control of the Constitutional Court?

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine has repeatedly found itself at the Center for Scandals related to the separation of powers, the adoption of dubious laws and the impact on the independence of the court itself. Every new government in Ukraine tried to do everything to obtain a “manual” court that can quickly recognize the right law unconstitutional or vice versa. We have a similar one now.

The reform of the CCU was the first of the seven requirements of the European Union to preserve the candidate’s status by Ukraine. According to the reform of judges, they are still appointed by the quotas of the President, the Verkhovna Rada and the Congress of Judges, but there is one important change. Candidates should now be tested in an expert advisory group (DGE). The DGE includes six people: three appointed the same president, parliament and a congress of judges, and three more – on the proposals of international partners, including the Venice Commission. This approach ensures independence, impartiality and transparency in the selection of candidates.

Currently, the Constitutional Court exercises the powers of 12 judges, but this is the least possible number for meeting and decision -making. That is, the disease of even one judge can stop the work of the whole organ. There are 6 more positions – 2 at the quota of the President of Ukraine, 2 under the quota of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and 2 more at the quota of the Congress of Judges of Ukraine.

Advertising:

Back in February 2025, the DGE transferred all the necessary documents to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the President of Ukraine for the appointment of 5 judges of the CCU – 2 at the quota of parliament and 3 at the presidential quota. However, only one candidate has been appointed since then.

The delay in the appointment of independent candidates may indicate a desire to form a subordinate body that would easily perform all the praise of the President or the Verkhovna Rada. It would be equal to the destruction of all constitutional reform, which was carried out by “blood and then” in memory of those who gave their lives on the Maidan and in the fight against Russian invaders.

Ukrainian history is known when the CCU became a field of political struggle, despite its legislative inconsistency and neutrality. We have collected the 5 most dubious decisions of the Constitutional Court, adopted through control by the authorities.

Spoiler: The arbitrary decision of the CCU can be found for the cadences of virtually each of the Presidents of Ukraine.

“Infinite” powers for the president.In 2003, before the next presidential election, there was an important legal dispute in Ukraine: can the current President Leonid Kuchma, who has held two terms, run for the third? The Constitution of Ukraine stipulated that the same person cannot be president more than twice in a row. But since the Constitution was adopted on June 28, 1996, and Kuchma first became president in 1994, a dispute arose, and the people’s deputies appealed to the Constitutional Court to explain this rule.

In December 2003, the judges made a decision that has puzzled many: restrictions on two terms begin to act only from the moment of adoption of the new Constitution. This meant that the first term Kuchma, which began until 1996, was “not counting.” Thus, his second term (1999-2004) was considered the first in the new constitution, and the President himself was entitled to run for the third term.

This decision caused a wave of indignation from society, political forces and jurists. Because such a formal approach leveled the main idea of ​​the constitution – justice.

By the way, the conclusion, which was the basis of the decision of the Constitutional Court and which allowed Kuchma to run for the third time, was prepared by Yuriy Bytyak and Alexander Petryshyn, who in 2021 was appointed Zelensky to the post of Judge of the CCU.

The decision itself became one of the factors that exacerbated the political struggle on the eve of the 2004 presidential elections, which later grew into the Orange Revolution. In addition, the decision increased the belief in society that the authorities are trying to stay at any cost. As a result, Kuchma did not use this decision and did not run for the third time. But the precedent himself left a deep mark in the history of Ukrainian constitutional law.

CSU as Yanukovych’s tool.Kuchma is not the only president who used the CCU as a tool for obtaining the desired. The next, even more arbitrary attempt to seize power, was the constitutional submission of 252 people’s deputies who wanted to declare invalid the Law on amendments to the 2004 Constitution. This greatly expanded the powers of President Yanukovych and allowed to concentrate all power in one hand. Moreover, the arguments of the deputies were to the fact that the law on changes were adopted from the failure of the procedure. And the CCU found the law unconstitutional.

The restoration of the Constitution in 2006 led to the transition from parliamentary-presidential to the presidential-parliamentary form of government. In particular, the President was entitled to form the government independently, which has become a key factor in changing the political balance. The decision in the future has become one of the shocks to the Revolution of Dignity.

“Yes” illegal enrichment.After the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, Ukraine, with the support of international partners, has created new anti -corruption bodies – NABU and SAP. The Article of the Criminal Code of illegal enrichment was one of the key tools that allowed these bodies to check officials and, if their wealth was much exceeded by official income, to be held liable.However, 59 MPs appealed to the CCU with a submission, which was asked to check the constitutionality of the article on illegal enrichment. They claimed that Art. 368-2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine violates the key principles of law, in particular, the presumption of innocence.

The CCU agreed with this argument, recognized the article as unconstitutional, and as a consequence, it was abolished. The decisions were made in the midst of a political campaign, which gave him even more resonance, because it was perceived by society as an attempt to prevent anti -corruption struggle. He will later be called the “first” attempt to bury anti -corruption reform.

Under the pressure of the public and international partners, in September 2019, the Verkhovna Rada adopted a new law that resumed criminal liability for illegal enrichment. Article 368-5 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine remains a key tool in combating corruption risks in power.

“No” by the NABU Director.In May 2020, 51 MPs sent a submission to the CCU on unconstitutionality of the Presidential Decree on the appointment of Artem Sytnik by the Director of NABU. It is noteworthy that most authors of the submission were members of the “Opposition Platform – for Life” faction, as well as deputies who were previously the objects of NABU investigations or had a conflict with it. At stake there was nothing but the legitimacy of the Anti -Corruption Bureau – institutions, which with such efforts created under the close eye of international partners.The CCU declared the decree unconstitutional, but did not provide for the automatic release of Artem Sytnik. The decision had no retroactive force, so all the previous NABU actions under his leadership remained in force. However, the legitimacy of Sytnik as a NABU Director was questioned. Many have taken this decision as politically motivated, aimed at undermining the independence of anti -corruption bodies.

Fighting the anti -corruption system.In October 2020, the CCU adopted one of the most controversial and resonance decisions known as “anti -corruption”. He recognized as unconstitutional a number of provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption” and the Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular those concerning electronic declaration and criminal liability for false declaration.The reason was the appeal of 47 people’s deputies, who argued that certain provisions of anti -corruption legislation violate the rights of judges and are excessive interference with their private life. In particular, the court recognized the unconstitutional Art. 366-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which provided for criminal liability for declaring false information. In addition, the decision was deprived of the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption of a large part of the powers: the right to check declarations, draw up protocols on administrative offenses and monitor the way of life of officials.

The injustice of the decision has caused serious public resonance and resistance to the public sector. International partners responded critically to him, considering it a step back in the fight against corruption, which then threatened visa -free regime and financial assistance.

***

These decisions were, in particular, the reason that the CCU reform was in the first place among EU requirements. Currently, international partners are also careful about the implementation of this reform. However, the primary professional, virtuous and independent constitutional court is needed by us, Ukrainians. After all, the examples clearly show what damage to the state can do manual CCU.

The opportunity to influence the decisions of the Constitutional Court has always been a “sacred Graal” for the Ukrainian authorities, delayed with the appointment of judges of the CCU by the President and the Verkhovna Rada show that President Zelensky does not refuse to influence the tradition of predecessors on the CCU.

Especially given that after the end of the martial law, the Constitutional Court will evaluate the constitutionality of the act that will determine the procedure and date of the future elections.

Recent events related to attacks on anti -corruption infrastructure clearly demonstrate the desire of the President’s office to increase their authoritarian impact and, it seems, delayed with the appointment of Judges of the CCU is one of the puzzles of this plan.

Anna Borisenkolawyer of Avtomaydan VO

A column is a material that reflects the author’s point of view. The text of the column does not claim the objectivity and comprehensive coverage of the topic that rises in it. The editorial board of “Ukrainian Truth” is not responsible for the accuracy and interpretation of the information provided and plays only the role of the carrier. The point of view of the UP editorial board may not coincide with the point of view of the author of the column.