Available in Russian
Author: Oleksandr Yevsieiev
Keywords: burden of proof; Constitutional Court of Ukraine; corruption offenses; Euromaidan; illegal enrichment; legal uncertainty
This article analyzes judgment no.1-r/2019 of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine from February 26, 2019, which abolished criminal liability for illegal enrichment. The article provides a general description of both the socio-political environment and the courtroom atmosphere in which this judgment was adopted. This article criticizes number of procedural tricks, especially that the trickts were used by judges to prevent their condemnation from civic society and protect their personal records. Special attention is paid to the international standards of the fight against corruption, which are enshrined in various conventions. Being able to appeal to such international conventions would allow the Court to strengthen its position. The author conducts a detailed analysis of the argumentation of the final decision, consistently isolating the motives that led the Court to its corresponding conclusions. These arguments are investigated using a comparative legal method, which contributes to their deeper understanding and reflection. A conclusion is made about the expediency of using a constitutionally conforming interpretation in this case, which would allow the Court, without recognizing the contested norm to be unconstitutional, to nevertheless prevent a number of possible risks associated with the application of this norm in practice. In general, it emphasizes a higher standard of rights and freedoms laid down in the Constitution of Ukraine compared with some European countries. Projections are made regarding the success of the constitutionally approved task of fighting corruption in the new political environment, in which Ukraine will find itself in the aftermath of the presidential elections of 2019.
About the author: Oleksandr Yevsieiev – Candidate of Sciences (Ph. D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Yevsieiev O. (2019) Nezakonnoe obogashchenie: vzglyad s Zhilyanskoy: Kommentariy k Resheniyu Konstitutsionnogo Suda Ukrainy ot 26 fevralya 2019 goda No1-r/2019 [Illegal enrichment: perspectives from Zhylianskaya: Commentary to the decision no.1-r/2019 of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine from February 26, 2019]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.28, no.3, pp.127–140. (In Russian).
Danelene I., Kotlyar D., Muller K. (2018) Visnovok amicus curiae shchodo vidpovidnosti Konstitutsii Ukrainy statti 368-2 Kriminal'nogo kodeksa Ukrainy [Amicus brief on the conformity to the Constitution of Ukraine clause 368-2 of the Penal Code of Ukraine]. Available at: https://euaci.eu/ua/what-we-do/resources/vysnovok-amicus-curae-on-constitutional-court?fbclid=IwAR0rCIGO9WbKLXWF9avfUFbLmxqE_gC20pgYwQPPHtZ1AP0QC_8zsGgFmBY (accessed: 13.05.2019). (In Ukrainian).
Evseev A.P. (2013) Psikhologiya konstitutsionnogo sudoproizvodstva [The psychology ot the constitutional justice], Kharkov: Urait. (In Russian).
Evseev A. (2018) Samoogranichenie v deyatel'nosti Konstitutsionnogo Suda Ukrainy [Self-restraint in the activity of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.27, no.2, pp.51–67. (In Russian).
Golovko L.V. (2009) Materialy k postroeniyu sravnitel'nogo ugolovno-protsessual'nogo prava: istochniki, dokazatel'stva, predvaritel'noe proizvodstvo [Materials to the construction of the comparative criminal procedure: sources, evidences, pre-trial investigation]. In: Trudy yuridicheskogo fakul'teta MGU imeni M.V.Lomonosova [The papers of the judicial faculty of the MSU named after M.V.Lomonosov], vol.11, Moscow: Pravovedenie, pp.227–360. (In Russian).
Hesse K. (1981) Osnovy konstitutsionnogo prava FRG [The foundations of the constitutional law of the FRG], Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura. (In Russian).
Khripun V. (2019) Kak stat'yu 368-2 UK priznali nekonstitutsionnoy: eksklyuzivnye podrobnosti [As article 368-2 of the Criminal Code declared unconstitutional: exclusive details]. Sudebno-yuridicheskaya gazeta, March 25. Available at: https://sud.ua/ru/news/publication/138224-kak-statyu-368-2-uk-priznali-nekonstitutsionnoy-eksklyuzivnye-podrobnosti?fbclid=IwAR3MMOhTET3zvVgqzIv1KkYaqramPOhJax5jmm5vGXqM-Av8h9x99RIiido (accessed: 12.05.2019). (In Russian).
Kononov A.L. (2006) Pravo na osoboe mnenie [The right to dissent opinion]. Zakon, no.11, pp.43–46. (In Russian).
Morshchakova T.G. (1991) Neskol'ko zamechaniy, kasayushchikhsya protsessual'noy storony deyatel'nosti Konstitutsionnogo Suda [Some reflections on the procedural aspect of the activity of the Constitutional Court]. Konstitutsionnyy vestnik, no.6, pp.49–53. (In Russian).
Muzila L., Morales M., Mathias M., Berher T. (2012) On the Take: Criminalizing Illicit Enrichment to Fight Corruption, Washington, DC: World Bank. Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/958781468339641204/pdf/On-the-take-criminalizing-illicit-enrichment-to-fight-corruption.pdf (accessed: 13.05.2019).
Tarasenko N. (2019) Politichne pidgruntya rishennya Konstitutsionnogo Sudu shchodo skasuvannya statti pro nezakonne zbagachennya [The political grounds for the decision of the Constitutional Court to abolish the article on illegal enrichment]. Ukraina: podii, fakty, komentari, no.5, pp.3–20. Available at: http://nbuviap.gov.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4196:skasuvannya-statti-pro-nezakonne-zbagachennya-v-otsinkakh-politikiv-ta-ekspertiv&catid=8&Itemid=350 (accessed: 12.05.2019). (In Ukrainian).
Vereshchagin A.N. (2004) Sudebnoe pravotvorchestvo v Rossii: Sravnitel'no-pravovye aspekty [Judicial law-making in Russia. Comparative and legal aspects], Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. (In Russian).
Vereshchagin A.N. (2008) Osobye mneniya v rossiyskikh sudakh [Dissent opinions in the Russian courts]. Gosudarstvo i pravo, no.2, pp.13–23. (In Russian).