The Supreme Court has canceled a decree of President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky on the abolition of the appointment of Oleksandr Tupytsky as a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, a source in the Supreme Court has told Interfax-Ukraine.
“The Supreme Court ruled unlawful the presidential decree canceling the appointment of Tupytsky as a judge of the Constitutional Court,” the agency’s interlocutor said.
As reported, Tupytsky lost his status as a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine due to the cancellation by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky of Viktor Yanukovych’s decree on his appointment, since, in accordance with the decision of the NSDC, his continued tenure as a judge of the Constitutional Court would constitute a significant threat to the national security of Ukraine. By the same decree, Zelensky canceled the decree on the appointment of Oleksandr Kasminin as a judge of the Constitutional Court.
Zelensky canceled presidential decree of May 14, 2013 No. 256 on the appointment of Tupytsky as a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The corresponding decree on some issues of ensuring the national security of Ukraine was signed on March 27.
On Dec. 29, 2020, the President of Ukraine signed a decree on the removal of Tupytsky from the position of a judge of the Constitutional Court for a period of two months.
In response, the Constitutional Court said that such a decision should be made at a special plenary session of the Constitutional Court, and Zelensky, by his decree, went beyond his constitutional powers. At the same time, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, to which the presidential decree refers, do not apply to judges of the Constitutional Court.
On Feb. 26, he signed a decree on the removal of Tupytsky from the position of a judge of the Constitutional Court for another month.
On Feb. 1, Tupytsky appealed to the court against decree of Dec. 29, 2020 No. 607/2020 on the dismissal of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine for two months. The ruling of Feb. 3 denied the opening of proceedings, since this claim was not subject to consideration under the rules of administrative proceedings.
This decision was appealed to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. By a ruling of Feb. 22, appeal proceedings were opened at the request of the plaintiff.
