The Committee on legal policy and justice said that the rule that the appeal conforms to the conclusions of the Venice Commission experts.
This is stated in the publication of the relevant Committee.
“The Committee on legal policy and justice categorically deny the accusations of social organizations regarding “not reading the Chairman of the Committee amendments with respect to appeals consideration of cases of NABOO in courts of General jurisdiction and not in the Higher anti-corruption court, and the emergence of such changes in an hour before the vote,” – noted in the Committee.
It assure that in the preparation of the bill a second reading, “the Committee agreed with the recommendations of the experts of the Venice Commission that in its opinion (paragraph 35) drew attention to the desirability that cases that were pending at the beginning of the Higher anti-corruption court continued its consideration of the courts, which they at that time listened to”.
As explained in the Committee, otherwise, the transfer of cases “would lead to overload of judges of the Supreme court anti-corruption, given the large number of cases dealt with in courts of first and appeal instances prior to the creation of the Highest anti-corruption court.”
“In addition, the Committee has taken into account that in accordance with the adopted in the first reading version of the bill, the appeals chamber of the Supreme anti-corruption court would be a court of appeal only in respect of judicial decisions of the Supreme court anti-corruption”, – noted in the publication.
The Committee add that we are talking about a large number of criminal proceedings which are now accused by the National anti-corruption Bureau, however, pre-trial investigation by various law enforcement agencies of Ukraine.
“The transfer of such cases to the Supreme corruption court or even appeal of decisions of courts of first instance (usually the judgment in a criminal case is always litigated by one of the parties to the proceeding) to Appeal the anti-corruption chamber of the Supreme court actually blocked the work of this institution for many years,” – noted in the Committee.
Therefore, at the Committee meeting of may 21, 2018 it was agreed “to recommend to consider the corresponding edit after determining that the trial criminal proceedings in respect of offences referred this Code to the jurisdiction of the Supreme court anti-corruption, which began in the courts of first and/or appellate courts to the Supreme court anti-corruption work continues in the courts”.
The Committee explained that it edits reflected in the prepared to the Parliament a comparative table to the bill. At the same time, it did not confirm when consideration of the bill in the session hall and left in its final version.
Was carried out technical-legal treatment of its wording, “which was discovered in a logical and terminological inconsistencies of some provisions of the criminal procedure code in the wording of the bill”.
“To achieve the right certainty has been updated and is legally described paragraph 20-2 of section X “Transitional provisions” of the CCP, the Chairman of the Committee announced, “a transcript” at the meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on 6 June 2018, the day before voting for the law as a whole”, – told the Committee, providing exposure from it.
The Committee’s claim that “in no case can not speak about the implementation of any non-public changes or falsifications of the provisions of the law of Ukraine “On Higher anti-corruption court.”
“In order to avoid possible violations of the Constitution of Ukraine and the logical coordination of the provisions of the bill, the necessary technical and legal adjustments have been repeatedly voiced at the session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, committed openly and publicly, formed by the Decision of the Committee on legal policy and justice and supported by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine”, – concluded in the Committee.