Experts of the Analytical and Legal Group of the Central Reform Office under MinRegion explained what is wrong about the lawsuit of MP Artem Vitko to the District Administrative Court of Kyiv, in which he demands to cancel the first elections scheduled for 23 December 2018 in 34 amalgamated hromadas.

1. Mr Vitko filed the lawsuit as MP of Ukraine

In accordance with the Code of Administrative Court Procedure of Ukraine, MPs cannot represent the interests of the people of Ukraine in administrative courts (Part 2 and Part 3, Article 43 of the CACP of Ukraine).

Consequently, the court would have to leave the claim without consideration, since the lawsuit was filed by a person who has no administrative procedural capacity (paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article 183, paragraph 1 of Part 1, Article 240 of the CASP).

2. Insufficient justification and evidence

The MP did not provide evidence of violation of hromadas’ voluntary amalgamation procedure. The court also does not give a legal assessment of the circumstances referred to by the plaintiff.

3. The lawsuit affects the interests of more than 200 thousand citizens of Ukraine – residents of hromadas

Judge Olesya Chudak, for some reason, did not take into account the principle of balance of interests and did not properly assess how the lawsuit of an improper plaintiff could affect the fate of several hundred thousand Ukrainians.

4. Suspension of the action of AH decisions has no legal consequences

The decisions of the councils on voluntary amalgamation, the action of which was suspended by the judge (available at the link), are the acts of individual action, since they relate to specific legal entities and determine the legal consequences for these persons. After the above decisions come into force, they exhaust their effect. And thus the suspension of their actions has no legal consequences.

5. Too simple and fast

The District Administrative Court of Kyiv considered the requirements and decided to suspend the action of decisions of local councils on voluntary amalgamation of hromadas very quickly – during one day. At the same time, the court decided on a simplified proceeding. Thus, the judge evaluated the case as a matter of minor complexity. This seems somewhat weird, as stated claims relate to 35 defendants, there are 175 third parties and the decision affects the interests of more than 200 thousand Ukrainian citizens. Perhaps the speed at which the case was considered prevented the court from making a deliberate judgment.

Conclusion

It turns out that it is possible and very easy to unreasonably stop the decisions, which took hromadas months to take, to cross the decisions discussed by thousands of people. Is not it an occasion for other opponents of the reform to do the same?

Of course, this does not motivate hromadas to change. This gives skeptics a reason for criticism. This does not give any reform benefits to those who are in doubt. And this is another challenge that the hromadas will overcome since the time for change has come.

The reform opponents are already unveiling their names, and it is good, because when you know who is against you, know the interests of this person, and when you are sure that the truth is on your side, you have almost won...

Information about the plaintiff:

Artem Vitko - MP from the Radical Party of Oleh Lyashko, chairman of the subcommittee on social policy of the agro-industrial complex, development of rural areas, science and education at the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Agrarian Policy and Land Relations.