Shokin will appeal to the Supreme court to be reinstated

The Supreme administrative court violated the procedural rules, refused to consider the claim of Shokin.

The Prosecutor General of Ukraine Viktor Shokin (2015-2016) filed in the Supreme Court statement regarding the consideration of the question of his restoration to office.

His lawyer Vladislav Maksimov told the media that, in a case the Supreme administrative court had violated procedural rules, therefore, the Supreme Court of Ukraine to cancel the decision Vasu.

As you know, the judges of the Supreme administrative court has refused to consider the claim of Shokin in fact. Lawyers Okinawian that the court wrongly applied the provision of part 2 of article 99 of the Code of administrative procedure, which establishes the procedure of calculation of period of appeal to the administrative court.

13 Feb 2017 Victor Cholinolytic documentary evidence of the Verkhovna Rada about the fact that “Ghost voting” in voting for his resignation. The vote for granting consent to the dismissal from office Shokin was counted the votes of four MPs who were absent at the plenary session.

February 27, 2017 from Specialized anti-corruption procuratorial has received information that the National anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine conducted an investigation on the facts of bribery of MPs during the voting for the resignation of Shokin.

At the same time, the court did not pay attention to it and made an erroneous conclusion that the period for appeal to the administrative court began to run from the date of adoption of the contested decision, and not from the date when the person learned or should have learned about violation of his rights, freedoms or interests, as specified in article 99 of the Code of administrative procedure.

“Viktor Shokin in his statement of claim provided a complete irrefutable evidence of violations that took place during his dismissal. Given this, the court had to accept the claim to consideration and to consider it on the merits, granting the applicant access to justice. Why judges didn’t? Obviously because they were under pressure. In particular, the judge Valentyn Moroz. Considering, in particular, and these circumstances, we believe the decision of the SACU so that is taken in violation of procedural law, therefore it is subject to cancellation,” said the lawyer Vladislav Maksimov.

According to him, the judge SACU Valentin Moroz, who chaired the panel of judges while considering the claim of the Victor, could not act impartially. After all, as it became known, on the eve of the hearing, the GPU has opened a criminal case for making false information in the document management system of court cases that led Valentyn Moroz.

“Obviously, the judge felt some pressure and had openly communicate about it before the hearing and make a withdrawal. But he did not, and therefore the claim of the Victor was considered the person, who was under pressure from the GPU,” – said the lawyer.

The pressure on judges who have considered the claim of the Victor, evidenced by the following fact. Vasu had the procedural opportunity to address the issue of abandonment of the claim without consideration even of the proceedings or during the preparatory proceedings. But for more than one month from the date of submission of the claim, the court did not consider the term to apply to the court missed and was preparing to consideration of the merits. However, after the information about the criminal case against officials of the court, the court changed its mind.

The failure of SACU to consider the claim Shokin is essentially a violation of the right of access to justice that is contrary to the practice of the European court of human rights.

So, in the “Belle France” in 1995 the Court established that the Convention is about the protection of rights chelovekam fundamental freedoms contains guarantees of fair trial, one aspect of which is access to court.

The level of access provided by the national legislation must be sufficient to ensure human rights on the court. That is, the court recognized that every person should have a clear practical opportunity to challenge the actions, which have elements of illegal interference in his rights. Preventing this is a violation of the principles of the rule of law in a democratic society.

In case “Golder V. the United Kingdom,” the court also concluded that the inability to take advantage of this procedural guarantee, access to court is not valid. And characteristics such as justice, openness, dynamism, lose their meaning if there is no separate trial. Thus, the court acknowledged: the Convention provides that everyone has the right to consideration in court of any dispute concerning his civil rights.

Thus, lawyers Shokin asked the Supreme Court to overturn the decision Vasu, as in the proceedings judges made a substantial violation of procedural rules, which prevent to consider the case in fact make a legitimate informed decision.

© 2017, paradox. All rights reserved.