The Constitutional Court of Ukraine

The Constitutional Court consists of 18 judges. The judges are appointed by various sectors of the Ukrainian government. The president appoints six, the VerkhovnaRada six and the Supreme Court six. The Constitutional Court draws conclusions and renders decisions in matters regarding:

• the constitutional legality of laws and legal acts passed by the VerkhovnaRada, acts of the president, acts of the Cabinet of Ministers and acts of the VerkhovnaRada of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea;

• the relationship of the Constitution of Ukraine to international treaties signed by Ukraine or international treaties that are submitted to the VerkhovnaRada for approval;

• an impeachment process, as delineated in articles 111 and 151 of the Constitution;

• the legality of draft laws on changing the Constitution of Ukraine as delineated in its statutes;

• the disregard for the Constitution and laws of Ukraine by the VerkhovnaRada of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea;

• official interpretations of the Constitution and laws of Ukraine.

Its authority does not include questions on the legal aspects of acts of government organs, government organs of the Crimea, organs of city government or the competence of judges of the General Court of Competence.

The Constitutional Court by law does not have the right to change its decisions, it can only review a decision if new factors arise that were not known earlier.

By the Constitution, a judge’s term of office is nine years. He can work until he is 65 years old. If a judge is appointed at the age of 60, although he has a nine-year term, he will only be able to work for five years, until his retirement at the age of 65. The chairman of the Constitutional Court is elected by his fellow judges for a three-year term, and cannot be re-elected. The deputy chairmen are also elected for three-year term. On October 18, 1996, the judges took the oath of office before a session of the VerkhovnaRada. They began their official work that day. The chairman serves his three-year term as part of his nine-year term as a judge on the Constitutional Court.

The court is divided into three judicial collegiums, which is delineated by the law on the Constitutional Court. One collegium of six judges will handle submissions by citizens for review, a second collegium will handle petitions by government bodies for review; and the third collegium will handle a mix of both submissions and petitions.

The chairman and the deputy chairmen are part of the collegiums, not as chairman and deputies, but as equal members of the court. If a judge dies, if he loses his citizenship, if he resigns, his vacated position is filled by that government body that appointed him. That is, if he was one of six appointed by the president, then the president appoints his successor, if it was the Supreme Court then they do so, if the VerkhovnaRada ... and so on.

The judges have three months to review submissions to the court (by citizens) and six months to review petitions (from government bodies) after they are presented to the plenary body.

b) The information below is wrong, the facts are distorted.Correct the sentences.

1. The Constitutional Court consists of 20 judges appointed by different government bodies. 2. The judges are appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers and the VerkhovnaRada. 3. The Constitutional Court draws conclusions and renders decisions in matters regarding the legality of laws passed by foreign governments where the interests of Ukrainians are touched. 4. The decision of the Constitutional Court can be appealed to the Highest Constitutional Court. 5. By the Constitution, a judge's term of office is eight years and he can work until he is 65. 6. If a judge is appointed at the age of 60 and is experienced and respected, he has the right to serve his full term of eight years. 7. The chairman of the Constitutional court elected by fellow judges gets an additional three-year term besides nine years. 8. The chairman of the Constitutional court can be re-elected with the consent of the President. 9. The court is divided into four judicial collegiums dealing with 1) submissions by citizens for review, 2) petitions by government bodies for review, 3) laws passed by the VerkhovnaRada, 4) International Treaties. 10. If a judge dies, if he loses his citizenship, if he resigns, his vacated position is filled by a judge of the Supreme Court.

c) Fill in the table and discuss the results in the group.

the Constitutional Court Structure	Cases tried by the Constitutional Court	Legal procedure	Demands to judges

d) Tell your partner about the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Use the table filled.

e) Draw a structural scheme of the Ukrainian Court System. Compare your scheme with your partner’s.

3. Look through the texts “The Ukrainian Court System” and “The Constitutional Court of Ukraine”. Act out the situations given below.

1. A law student is interviewing an arbitration court judge to prepare a report on the specifics of the Ukrainian Arbitration Court System. The arbitration court judge is telling about the structure and functions of the Arbitration Court, describing an arbitration proceeding and explaining the difference between a legal entity and a physical person.

2. A Constitutional Court judge explains to his grandson the specifics of his job and why it is so important for the society. The grandson doesn’t understand what impeachment is and how it is connected with the Court’s activity (he thinks impeachment is connected with peaches which he adores). The granddad explains the difference between impeachment and peaches. The boy wonders if it’s not boring to resolve the similar cases, if his granddad has ever been a chairman and what his granddad is going to do in three years when he retires. The granddad wants to spend more time with his grandson in future.

3. Two law students are discussing the difference between raion and oblast courts of general jurisdiction. They compare cases tried by these courts, their duties and participants of a trial procedure. One student is sure that Ukrainians need a jury trial to get a fair verdict. The other doesn’t believe in soundness of jurors thinking they can be biased or vendible. He / she believes that the accused needs more a smart lawyer than a jury.The first student disagrees explaining that lawyers serve not people but money.

4. a) Explain the difference between a crime, abreach of law and a misconduct.

b) Say what of these actions are crimes and what are breaches of law or misconduct.

Speeding, trespassing, crossing the street when the light is red, illegal crossing of the frontier, breach of duty, default, forgery, breach of the peace, disturbance, violation of human rights, traffic violation, unprofessional conduct, breach of order, untimely delivery, hate crime, slander, child abuse, abuse of power, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, abuses of figures, misdemeanor in office, carelessness, arson, smoking in public places, bullying, calling names, spanking, slap in the face.

5. Say what you would do if:

1. you witnessed a motoring offence;

2. you committed a motoring offence;

3. your friend asked you to testify to his alibi though he wasn’t with you that day;

4. you saw a pickpocket trying to relieve somebody of their purse / wallet in the bus;

5. you saw somebody abusing a child;

6. you saw children burning a call button of the elevator in your block of flats;

7. you were stopped by the traffic warden and had no driving license;

8. you were asked to testify against your spouse;

9. you surprised an intruder in your lounge at night ransacking your drawers;

10. you were suggested to taste soft drug at the party;

11. you were going in the countryside by your car but the car’s plate turned out to have been stolen;

12. you witnessed somebody was committing a shoplifting trying to leave the ready-made shop in the new clothes without paying for them.

6. Complete the sentences matching the beginning (1-8) with the ending (a-h).

1. I heard that they’re going to bring a) off accidentally in his hand.

2. Police are appealing for members of the b) away with serious crimes

public to come every day.

3. Nobody was convinced when the man c) in by this trick and have

claimed the gun had gone lost a lot of money.

4. The policewoman started to take d) forward with any information they feel might be useful.

5. Lots of old people have been taken e) up the bank and was sentenced to five years in prison.

6. Peterson was found guilty of holding f) off this time, but told him that he wouldn’t be so lucky next time.

7. Many people get g) in a law banning smoking in public places.

8.The policeman decided to let Shaun h) down everything I was saying and I knew I was in serious trouble.

7. Each of the words in bold is in the wrong sentence. Write the correct word.

1. A man had been murdered death in his garden. 2. The murder was his neighbour living the next door but one. 3. The man’s daughter was present in the prisoner where the accused was being tried. 4. The jury were about to retire to the jury room to punish their verdict. 5. At this moment, the daughter of the guilty man did something. 6. She rose to her feet and shot the courtroom in the courtroom. 7. Perhaps she thought that the jury would find him not innocent and she felt certain that he was guilty. 8. Or perhaps she thought that even if the jury did find the prisoner guilty, the judge might not consider him by death. 9. She wished to be certain that the prisoner was punished by brutally, so she took law into her own hands and shot him. 10. Of course, if the accused was shot dead, it was useless for the jury to decide whether the dead man was guilty or murdered.11. The girl was taken into suspect in the courtroom. 12. Maybe, the brutal custody of her father would be considered an extenuating circumstance when the jury brought in their verdict.

8. Fill in the blanks with prepositions where necessary.

1. The prisoner was charged … robbery. 2. The trial … the offender was adjourned. 3. The prisoner was released … bail. 4. The offender was fined … $50. 5. The man went … trial … charged … murder. 6. The gang leaders were put … trial for armed raids. 7. They were put … trial … kidnapping. 8. The witness gave evidence … the accused whom he thought innocent. 9. The prisoners were sentenced … different terms … imprisonment. 10. The accused pleaded not guilty … kidnapping. 11. The farmer brought an action … his neighbour … breaking the fence. 12. The prisoner was accused … insulting the authorities. 13. The jury declared the prisoner guilty … kidnapping. 14. He was put … house arrest … a remote district and has now been charged … insulting the policeman. 15. They appeared … court.

9. Put each of the following words from the box into its correct place in the passage below. Each word may be used only once.

a)

well-informed lawmakers understand murky

muddled experience attaining trouble

mitigating Soviet-born generation. foreign

untrustworthy journalist choking oligarchs

investments politicized happening average