DOCSLIB.ORG

“PARLIAMENTARY REFORM” Ukraine Reform Conference / Vilnius, 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“PARLIAMENTARY REFORM” Ukraine Reform Conference / Vilnius, 2020 SECTORAL BRIEF “PARLIAMENTARY REFORM” Ukraine Reform Conference / Vilnius, 2020 SECTORAL BRIEF “PARLIAMENTARY REFORM” Authors: Oleksandr Zaslavsky, Director of the Analytical Division of the Legislative Initiatives Laboratory; Svitlana Matviyenko, Head of Board, the Agency for Legislative Initiatives Reviewer: Yuliia Kyrychenko, Member of the Board, Head of Constitutional Law Projects at the Center for Political and Legal Reforms, Co-Chair of the RRP Coalition Council 1. Evaluation of reform policies of the Parlia- provisions of which have been outlined in the To- ment and the President during the period of ronto Principles: 1) to update the Roadmap on September 2019 – August 2020 and its com- internal reform of the Parliament, in particular pliance with the Toronto Principles (prelimi- to approve a new concept of the legislative pro- nary recommendations) (based on the analysis cess; 2) to approve the Law “On Peculiarities of of the Government Program, the plans of the Civil Service in the Parliament of Ukraine”; 3) to ministries and the adopted/rejected regulato- develop and approve the Code of MPs Ethics. ry acts) As of the end of August 2020, none of these Problematic aspects of the work of the Ukrainian recommendations had been implemented, al- Parliament have been repeatedly emerging over though work on the bill “On Peculiarities of Civil the past 10 years: starting with the phenome- Service in the Parliament of Ukraine”4 had been non of “button-pushing” and ending with the restored, a new working group on the reform of adoption of laws that contain explicitly unconsti- the Parliament was established and instructed tutional norms. The presentation of the Report to prioritize / update the 52 recommendations and Roadmap on internal reform and enhanc- approved in 2016 by order of the Speaker of the ing the institutional capacity of the Parliament Parliament, and intentions to at least adopt the of Ukraine by the European Parliament Assess- Code for MPs Ethics for the MPs of the Parlia- ment Mission in the end of February 20161 can mentary majority were proclaimed in the me- be considered as the beginning of the current dia. In addition, the Parliamentary Rules are stage of comprehensive Parliamentary reform2. still inconsistent with the current Constitution Unfortunately, less than 45% of this reform has of Ukraine, and the work on improvement of the been implemented during the last three years. legislative process and operation of the Parlia- Moreover, until the termination of Parliament’s ment is generally sporadic rather than systemic. eighth convocation, no draft law that could affect key aspects of the legislative process had been Hence, during the first two sessions of the Par- adopted. liament of the 9th convocation, a number of laws, which introduced mostly selective changes to the In the run-up to the election of a new Parlia- Parliamentary Rules were adopted. One of the ment, a number of NGOs initiated the agenda for most complex changes was the improvement of the Parliamentary Reform3, the most important the electronic document flow in the Parliament, 1 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/resources/library/media/20160301RES16508/20160301RES16508.pdf 2 Assessment of implementation of internal reform and enhancement of institutional capacity of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Access mode: https://parliament.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/parliament_roadmap_report_eng.pdf 3 The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Reform Agenda. Access mode: http://rada2019.parliament.org.ua/ 4 Information on the results of the roundtable discussion on parliamentary reform. Access Mode: https://www.facebook.com/ VRUreform/posts/514628929266676?__tn__=K-R 1 according to which the documents could exist in of the law on political parties was also initiated. both electronic and written forms. Moreover, in October 2019, an opportunity to introduce a Plan According to the recommendations in the of Legislative Activities that should improve the Roadmap, the number of parliamentary com- planning of the Parliament’s work was also pro- mittees has been reduced and optimized to 23. vided, while in June 2020 the Plan for the current year was approved by the Parliament. In addition, 2. Current challenges / issues in the relevant the amendments to the Parliamentary Rules in- policy area creased the powers of committees to prepare One of the biggest challenges is the lack of po- draft bills for consideration at the session room. litical experience and legal knowledge of the de- On the other hand, the Parliamentary Reform cision-makers (both MPs and the President of Office5 (which can act as a focal point for reform) Ukraine). The first and foremost demonstration was launched during the Parliament’s 9th con- of that was the provision of sporadic initiatives vocation, although its creation was the result of to amend the Constitution of Ukraine. Thus, a the joint work of previous political leadership of number of constitutional changes were initiated, the Parliament and technical assistance pro- which were represented as the “parliamentary jects. reform”, though in reality they were not: intro- duction of a declarative legislative initiative of Meetings of members of parliamentary factions the people, reduction of the constitutional com- and groups in the Jean Monnet Dialogue format6 position of the Parliament to 300 MPs, abolition have also been resumed in the new convocation of parliamentary immunity, extension of the of the Parliament. The very fact of holding such grounds for early termination of a MP’s powers. meetings, as well as the participation of the In addition to the fact that these initiatives were people’s deputies responsible for parliamentary not elements of a comprehensive reform of the reform in the 8th convocation (in particular, the Parliament and were populist in character, they previous Head of the Parliament, Andriy Paru- also were of poor quality in terms of legal writ- biy), demonstrates the succession and intention ing, as evidenced by three negative conclusions of the political leadership of the Parliament to of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (hereinaf- continue the parliamentary reform. ter — the CCU) and two conclusions of the CCU Effective introduction of digital tools in the work with reservations (out of seven initiated projects). of the Parliament during the COVID-19 pandem- Amendments adopted in the regulation aimed ic should also be noted, in particular the organi- to hold MPs accountable are populist rather zation of online committee meetings. than rationally justified: 1) due to the aboli- Moreover, a working group on the preparation tion of parliamentary immunity; 2) for violation of the draft Law on Regulatory Acts began its of the prescription of personal voting; 3) for work at the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, with non-participation in voting; are rather populist the direct involvement of the first Deputy Speak- than rationally justified. Criminal liability for er of the Parliament, as well as the wide range “button-pushing”, the only crime that deter- of experts (including representatives of the civil mined a special subject — a People’s Deputy of society). Adopting such a law is one of the key el- Ukraine – was unjustifiably introduced. ements of improving the legislative process and Such a situation indicates that the key actors enhancing the quality of legislative initiatives. In lack a conceptual vision for parliamentary re- addition, in the end of May 2020, work on a bill form. This is also confirmed by some initia- on the opposition and the relationship between tives to amend the Parliamentary Rules, which, the coalition and the opposition was launched again, may grant political benefits in the short with the participation of the First Deputy Speak- term (speed up and facilitate the majority of the er. Moreover, work on developing a new version law-making process), but will have negative con- 5 Information about the official signing of the decree by the Head of the Verkhovna Rada on the establishment of the Office of Parliamentary Reform. Access mode: https://iportal.rada.gov.ua/fsview/167443.html 6 Information on the results of the seventh round of reconciliation of positions by various parliamentary forces in the format of Jean Monnet Dialogues. Access mode: https://iportal.rada.gov.ua/fsview/185373.html 2 sequences for parliamentarism in general (lim- es of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, reg- iting parliamentary minority opportunities and ulation of the status of the coalition, as well as balance so non-perfect regulatory procedures). the mechanisms of its formation and numbers It concerns the almost immediately postponed estimation, etc; draft law No. 2691 and a draft law No. 3018, reg- 2. To revise the Roadmap for internal reform istered in early February and withdrawn on Sep- of the Parliament in order to revise recom- tember 1, 2020. mendations that have become obsolete or of Amendments to the Parliamentary Rules on the doubtful relevance in the context of the domes- introduction of a special procedure for consid- tic parliamentary practices; eration of bills in the second reading in case of 3. To approve the concept of the legislative a large number of proposals and amendments process “from start to finish”, which should be (more than 500) from the subjects of the legisla- agreed between all subjects of the legislative tive initiative are also quite ambiguous. Although process and correlate with the ongoing reform this mechanism has unblocked the considera- of public administration; tion
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Democracy and the Politics of Parliamentary Immunity in Turkey
    121 Democracy and the politics NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY of parliamentary immunity in Turkey Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Gürcan Koçan ‹stanbul Technical University Department of Philosophy, Simon Wigley Bilkent University In Turkey there is currently a widespread public desire to narrow the extent to which parliamentarians are immune from the law. That desire is largely motivated by the perception that political corruption is widespread and that parliamentary immunity only serves to obstruct the fight against it.1 As a result, a number of political parties have based their electoral platforms on the promise to limit the scope of parliamentary immunity once in office. As of yet, none have carried through their promise and this has only served to reinforce the public view that parliamentarians see their immunity as a personal privilege. Irrespective of the merits of that charge, there is a genuine concern that confronts Turkish deputies, which means that they will be less likely to limit the immunity once elected. Their concern is that current law does not adequately protect civil and political liberties and that the judiciary is not yet sufficiently evenhanded in its treatment of political cases. In effect, the fight against political corruption has been frustrated in part because of the risk to free speech that exposure to the law might entail. The almost contradictory position of the European Union well illustrates the problem. On the one hand, it is exerting pressure on the Turkish government to narrow parliamentary immunity so as to combat political corruption,2 while on the other hand it continues to raise concerns about the prosecution of non-violent expression and the partiality of the judiciary in Turkey.3 1 Ercis Kurtulufl, Country Reports on Political Corruption and Party Financing – Turkey (Transparency International, 2004); available from www.transparency.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Immunity
    Parliamentary Immunity A Comprehensive Study of the Systems of Parliamentary Immunity of the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands in a European Context Parliamentary Immunity A Comprehensive Study of the Systems of Parliamentary Immunity of the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands in a European Context DISSERTATION to obtain the degree of Doctor at the Maastricht University, on the authority of the Rector Magnificus, Prof. dr. L.L.G. Soete in accordance with the decision of the Board of Deans, to be defended in public on Thursday 26 September 2013, at 16.00 hours by Sascha Hardt Supervisor: Prof. mr. L.F.M. Verhey (Leiden University, formerly Maastricht University) Co-Supervisor: Dr. Ph. Kiiver Assessment Committee: Prof. dr. J.Th.J. van den Berg Prof. dr. M. Claes (Chair) Prof. dr. C. Guérin-Bargues (Université d’Orléans) Prof. mr. A.W. Heringa Prof. D. Oliver, MA, PhD, LLD Barrister, FBA (Univeristy College London) Cover photograph © Andreas Altenburger - Dreamstime.com Layout by Marina Jodogne. A commercial edition of this PhD-thesis will be published by Intersentia in the Ius Commune Europaeum Series, No. 119 under ISBN 978-1-78068-191-7. Für Danielle ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As I have been told, the idea that I could write a doctoral dissertation first occurred to Philipp Kiiver when he was supervising my bachelor thesis in 2007. At that time, I may well have dreamed of a PhD position, but I was far from having any actual plans, let alone actively pursuing them. Yet, not a year later, Luc Verhey and Philipp Kiiver asked me whether I was interested to join the newly founded Montesquieu Institute Maastricht as a PhD researcher.
    [Show full text]
  • The Functioning of Democratic Institutions in Turkey
    http://assembly.coe.int Doc. 15272 21 April 2021 The functioning of democratic institutions in Turkey Report1 Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee) Co-rapporteurs: Mr Thomas HAMMARBERG, Sweden, Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group, and Mr John HOWELL, United Kingdom, European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance Summary The Monitoring Committee is deeply concerned about recent developments in Turkey which have further undermined democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Procedures seeking to lift the parliamentary immunity of a third of the parliamentarians (overwhelmingly from opposition parties), the attempt to close the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) and the continued crackdown on its members put political pluralism and the functioning of democratic institutions at risk. The presidential decision of 20 March 2021 to withdraw from the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (CETS No.210, the Istanbul Convention) to combat violence against women and domestic violence is a regrettable step backwards, made without any parliamentary debate, which raises the question of the modalities of denunciation of conventions in democratic societies. The committee also urges the immediate release of Selahattin Demirtaş and Osman Kavala following the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In order to reverse these worrying trends, the Turkish authorities should seize the opportunity of implementing the Human Rights Action Plan and revising the legislation on elections and political parties to take meaningful steps, put an end to the judicial harassment of opposition and dissenting voices, improve freedom of expression and media and restore the independence of the judiciary, in co-operation with the Council of Europe 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Manifesto 52 Former MEP Immunity of Carles
    March 5, 2021 On February 23, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament voted in favour (15 votes in favour including the votes of the Spanish parties PP, PSOE, Ciudadanos and the far- right VOX; 8 against and 2 abstentions), of a report that recommends to the Plenary to lift the immunity of our colleagues MEPs Carles Puigdemont, Toni Comín and Clara Ponsatí. The vote on this report will take place in the next plenary session, taking place next week.. The undersigned, former Members of the European Parliament, call on the Members of the European Parliament who are to take part in this vote, to vote against this proposal and therefore in favour of protecting the immunity of their colleagues Mr. Puigdemont, Mr. Comín and Ms. Ponsatí. First, because the court that requests the waiver of their immunity, the Spanish Supreme Court, is not the competent authority to make the request, as it was argued before the JURI Committee, and neither is it an impartial court, as recently established by the Belgian justice, since the Brussels Court of Appeals found that Lluís Puig, former Minister of the Catalan Government in exile, could not be impartially judged by this Spanish Court. Second, there is evidence that these three Members of the European Parliament are suffering political persecution. This political persecution is based on evidence, such as the judicial obstacles to prevent them from running in the European elections, the presence of up to five Spanish MEPs on the JURI Committee and their public statements on the report before, during, and after the vote; the inclusion of wrong charges in the report of Clara Ponsatí; or the leaking of the report before the vote to a far-right newspaper in Spain.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Immunity
    Parliamentary Immunity Background Paper prepared by the Inter-Parliamentary Union UNDP Initiative on Parliaments, Crisis Prevention and Recovery In association with the Inter-Parliamentary Union September 2006 The views expressed in this public ation are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNDP, or their Member States Table of contents Page Introduction.................................................................................. 1 1. The purpose of immunity for members of parliament .. 2 2. What kind of parliamentary immunity? 2.1. Two major systems of immunity ............................... 2 2.2 Historical background............................................... 3 3. Legal basis for parliamentary immunity .......................... 4 4. The scope of freedom of speech (parliamentary non- accountability) .............................................................................................. 4 4.1. Who is protected? .............................................................. 5 4.2 When does the protection begin and end?.................. 5 4.3 Does the protection apply everywhere? ....................... 5 4.4. "Exercise of the parliamentary mandate": What does it mean? (a) Activities undertaken in the context of parliamentary proceedings 6 (b) Repeating outside parliament words spoken in parliament 6 (c) Activities and statements made as part of constituency and general political work ............................................... 6 (d) Reproduction of parliamentary
    [Show full text]
  • Should Politicians Be Prosecuted for Statements Made in the Exercise of Their Mandate?
    Provisional version Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Should politicians be prosecuted for statements made in the exercise of their mandate? Report Rapporteur: Mr Boriss Cilevičs, Latvia, Socialists, Democrats and Greens Group A. Draft resolution 1. The Assembly stresses the crucial importance, in a living democracy, of politicians being able to freely exercise their mandates. This requires a particularly high level of protection of politicians’ freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, both in parliament and when speaking to their constituents in public meetings or through the media. 2. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, the Convention) protects everyone’s freedom of speech, including the right to make statements that “shock or disturb” those who do not share the same opinions, as established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court). 3. The Assembly also notes that freedom of speech is not unlimited. Hate speech condoning violence against certain persons or groups of persons on the grounds of race, origin, religion or political opinions, as well as calls for the violent overthrow of democratic institutions are not protected. Politicians even have a special responsibility, due to their high visibility, to refrain from such abuses. 4. Everyone, and in particular politicians, has the right to make proposals whose implementation would require changes of the constitution, provided the means advocated are peaceful and legal and the objectives do not run contrary to the fundamental principles of democracy and human rights. 5. This includes calls to change a centralist constitution into a federal or confederal one, or vice versa, or to change the legal status and powers of territorial (local and regional) entities, including to grant them a high degree of autonomy or even independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Immunity in Democratizing Countries: the Case of Turkey
    Parliamentary Immunity in Democratizing Countries: The Case of Turkey Simon Wigley Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 31, Number 3, August 2009, pp. 567-591 (Article) Published by Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.0.0087 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/271215 Access provided by Bilkent Universitesi (3 Oct 2017 07:29 GMT) HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Parliamentary Immunity in Democratizing Countries: The Case of Turkey Simon Wigley* ABstract This article examines the effect that shielding elected representatives from criminal law might have in those countries that are undergoing democra- tization. Parliamentary immunity helps to compensate for any shortfall in the human rights enjoyed by ordinary citizens and provides elected repre- sentatives with the protection necessary to rectify that shortfall. However, the immunity may also protect subversive advocacy, rights violations and political corruption. Turkey provides an illuminating case study of those challenges to parliamentary immunity. Drawing on the Turkish experience, it is argued that methods other than exposing parliamentarians to criminal prosecution should be used to counter those problems. I. INTRODUCTION Historically, parliamentary immunity has been seen as an important demo- cratic right because it protects the ability of elected assemblies to debate and vote without interference by nonelected authorities. However, it is not a right that is intended to protect parliamentarians themselves, but to * Simon Wigley received his Ph.D. in politics from the London School of Economics and Po- litical Science. Since 1998 he has taught in the philosophy department at Bilkent University (Turkey). His research interests include democratic theory, distributive justice and Turkish studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Ukraine's Constitution of 1996 with Amendments Through 2014
    PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:52 constituteproject.org Ukraine's Constitution of 1996 with Amendments through 2014 This complete constitution has been generated from excerpts of texts from the repository of the Comparative Constitutions Project, and distributed on constituteproject.org. constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:52 Table of contents Preamble . 3 Chapter I: General Principles . 3 Chapter II: Human and Citizens' Rights, Freedoms and Duties . 7 Chapter III: Elections; Referendum . 17 Chapter IV: Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine . 18 Chapter V: President of Ukraine . 30 Chapter VI: Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine; Other Bodies of Executive Power . 36 Chapter VII: Procuracy . 40 Chapter VIII: Justice . 40 Chapter IX: Territorial Structure of Ukraine . 44 Chapter X: Autonomous Republic of Crimea . 44 Chapter XI: Local Self-Government . 47 Chapter XII: Constitutional Court of Ukraine . 49 Chapter XIII: Introducing Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine . 51 Chapter XIV: Final Provisions . 52 Chapter XV: Transitional Provisions . 52 Ukraine 1996 (rev. 2014) Page 2 constituteproject.org PDF generated: 26 Aug 2021, 16:52 • Source of constitutional authority • God or other deities Preamble • Motives for writing constitution • Preamble • Right to self determination The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, on behalf of the Ukrainian people - citizens of Ukraine of all nationalities, expressing the sovereign will of the people, based on the centuries-old history of Ukrainian state-building and on the right to self-determination realised
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Orders of the Congress of Deputies
    CONGRESS OF DEPUTIES STANDING ORDERS OF THE CONGRESS OF DEPUTIES MADRID 2004 STANDING ORDERS OF THE CONGRESS OF DEPUTIES ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Page PRELIMINARY PART. Constituent meeting of Congress........................... 145 PART I. Status of Members................................................................ 146 Chapter I. Rights of Members.................................................................. 146 Chapter II. Parliamentary Privileges ........................................................ 148 Chapter Ill. Duties of Members ................................................................ 150 Chapter IV. Acquisition, suspension and loss of Member Status............ 151 PART II. Parliamentary Groups........................................................... 152 PART III. Organization of Congress..................................................... 155 Chapter I. The Bureau ............................................................................. 155 Division I. Functions of the Bureau and its members.......................... 155 Division 2. Election of members of the Bureau ................................... 158 Chapter II. The Board of Spokesmen...................................................... 159 Chapter Ill. Committees ........................................................................... 160 Division 1. Committees. General rules ................................................ 160 Division 2. Standing Committees......................................................... 163 Division 3. Ad hoc Committees...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY BRIEF: a Summary of Case Studies of Armenia, Ukraine and Guatemala
    PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY BRIEF: A Summary of Case Studies of Armenia, Ukraine and Guatemala August 2006 This document is a summary of a publication that was produced for review and funded by the United States Agency for International Development in February 2006. It was prepared by Development Alternatives, Inc., and reflects the views of the authors. Parliamentary Immunity and Democracy Development 1 Practically all established and emerging democracies provide for some sort of immunity from prosecution for members of the legislature or parliament; often these rights are addressed in a country’s constitution. The legitimate purpose of immunity is to allow legislators to freely express themselves and adopt policy positions without fear of politically motivated retribution. However, protection from criminal and/or civil prosecution can allow some legislators to engage in corrupt or illicit behavior with impunity; alternately, an overly-politicized legislature and/or executive and judicial branches of government can override the legitimate protection that immunity is supposed to provide. Both scenarios may encourage abuses and serve to erode the public’s confidence in the legislature as a democratic institution. Parliamentary immunity is receiving increased attention as a potential threat to democratic development. A 2003 public opinion poll in Armenia revealed that the majority of Armenians would do away with parliamentary immunity altogether, equating it with corruption and special privileges, not rightful protection.2 The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) recently funded a conference in Latin America to discuss egregious abuses of official immunity with the aim of creating regional legal standards for limiting the scope of immunity.3 The Cambodian National Assembly promised in February 2006 to reinstate the parliamentary immunity of three opposition members, whose immunity was stripped last year despite sharp protest from international and local human rights groups who believed related criminal defamation charges were politically motivated.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitution of Ukraine
    CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE Adopted at the Fifth Session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on June 28, 1996 Amended by the Laws of Ukraine № 2222-IV dated December 8, 2004, № 2952-VI dated February 1, 2011, № 586-VII dated September 19, 2013, № 742-VII dated February 21, 2014, № 1401-VIII dated June 2, 2016 № 2680-VIII dated February 7, 2019 The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, on behalf of the Ukrainian people - citizens of Ukraine of all nationalities, expressing the sovereign will of the people, based on the centuries-old history of Ukrainian state-building and on the right to self-determination realised by the Ukrainian nation, all the Ukrainian people, providing for the guarantee of human rights and freedoms and of the worthy conditions of human life, caring for the strengthening of civil harmony on Ukrainian soil, and confirming the European identity of the Ukrainian people and the irreversibility of the European and Euro-Atlantic course of Ukraine, striving to develop and strengthen a democratic, social, law-based state, aware of responsibility before God, our own conscience, past, present and future generations, guided by the Act of Declaration of the Independence of Ukraine of August 24, 1991, approved by the national vote on December 1, 1991, adopts this Constitution - the Fundamental Law of Ukraine. Chapter I General Principles Article 1 Ukraine is a sovereign and independent, democratic, social, law-based state. Article 2 The sovereignty of Ukraine extends throughout its entire territory. Ukraine is a unitary state. The territory of Ukraine within its present border is indivisible and inviolable. Article 3 The human being, his or her life and health, honour and dignity, inviolability and security are recognised in Ukraine as the highest social value.
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion on Draft Constitutional Amendments
    Venice, 19 June 2015 CDL-AD(2015)013 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OPINION ON DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ON THE IMMUNITY OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND JUDGES OF UKRAINE Adopted by the Venice Commission At its 103rd Plenary Session (Venice, 19-20 June 2015) on the basis of comments by Mr Sergio Bartole (Substitute Member, Italy) Ms Hanna Suchocka (Member, Poland) Mr Kaarlo Tuori (Member, Finland) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2015)013 - 2 - I. Introduction 1. In a letter dated 14 May 2014, the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada), Mr Volodymyr Groysman, requested an opinion of the Venice Commission on draft constitutional amendments with respect to the immunity of members of parliament and judges in Ukraine (hereinafter, “the draft amendments” - CDL-REF(2015)006). 2. The Commission invited Mr Bartole, Ms Suchocka and Mr Tuori to act as rapporteurs on this issue. 3. At its 102nd plenary session (Venice, 20-21 March 2015), the Venice Commission held an exchange of views on the draft amendments with Ms Oksana Syroyid, Vice-Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada and with Mr Oleksiy Filatov, Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine. 4. This opinion was adopted by the Venice Commission at its 103rd plenary session (Venice, 19- 20 June 2015). II. Preliminary Remarks 5. On 5 February 2015, The Rada submitted the draft amendments to the Constitutional Court for an opinion on their conformity with the Constitution. The Court found the draft amendments to be in conformity with the Constitution.
    [Show full text]