Tsіhіnya: What accretion of power can there be if the CC does not use the existing one!
A former head of the Constitutional Court Valery Tsihinya told ERB whether an investigator of the General Office of Public Prosecutor and a judge of the Constitutional Court could exchange their positions and why he considered accretion of power of the Constitutional Court paradoxical and whether citizens should be allowed to turn to the Constitutional Court.
ERB: “Many things are being said about the President’s idea of accretion of power of the Constitutional Court now. He is planning to let judges participate in the elaboration and expertise of legal acts. Heads of the Supreme and economic courts have already supported this suggestion…”
Valery Tsіhіnya: “I am aware of it. I read comments on the suggestion on the Internet”.
-- So, you know what opinions there are about the legal possibility of participation of judges of the Constitutional Court in the lawmaking. How do you think: what has to be done to make the accretion possible – is it necessary to change the Basic Law of the country, organize a referendum about changing art. #116 or allow deputies of the House of Representatives make amendments to “The Code of judicial system and the status of judges”?
-- I know the answer to this question but I am not going to tell it to you now, sorry. They will say that Tsihinya is trying to put in his two cents worth in the discussion of the issue. So I’d better not answer it at all.
-- What do you think about the very idea of power accretion of the Constitutional Court? Is it necessary?
-- Bit it does not use its current powers that are guaranteed by the Constitution! First of all, it should make use of its efficiency in influencing a certain power. It should be done before speaking about any accretion of its power. It does not make use of what it has. So it seems paradoxical to me – they are speaking about power accretion while the court is not using the available power. That is strange!
-- Could you specify what the court is not doing regardless of its ability to do it?
-- No, I will not specify it.
-- Your former colleague from the Constitutional Court Valery Fadzeyeu suggested allowing citizens to turn to the Constitutional Court without having to go through the six institutions that have the right to do it. Do you think it should be done taking into account the fact that the institutions take their time appealing to the Constitutional Court?
-- The majority of foreign courts give the right to citizens and the legislation allows it. There is nothing fundamental about it. However, the suggestion itself is interesting.
-- New laws are being adopted with many holes existing in them. Now it is necessary to correct them. Do you think the Constitutional Court should conduct expertise of new laws before they are adopted?
-- It should be conducted but it is not the Constitutional Court that should do it. It will be fettered. Just imagine, I approve some legal act, add my remarks and suggestions, then lawmakers take it all into account and then it is sent to court by one of the initiators after it has been adopted. Sorry, but I have already expressed my opinion. I have added my remarks and suggestions. How can I conduct expertise on behalf of the Constitutional Court? I do not think that the Constitutional Court should be given this right.
-- The President made the Attorney General and the head of the Constitutional Court exchange their positions the other day. Is there so much in common in the work of the head of the Constitutional Court and of an investigator of the General Office of the Public Prosecutor that they can easily exchange positions?
-- We are talking about different issues. An investigator of the General Office of Public Prosecutor and the Constitutional Court are different. They do different jobs and have different functions.
ERB: “Many things are being said about the President’s idea of accretion of power of the Constitutional Court now. He is planning to let judges participate in the elaboration and expertise of legal acts. Heads of the Supreme and economic courts have already supported this suggestion…”
Valery Tsіhіnya: “I am aware of it. I read comments on the suggestion on the Internet”.
-- So, you know what opinions there are about the legal possibility of participation of judges of the Constitutional Court in the lawmaking. How do you think: what has to be done to make the accretion possible – is it necessary to change the Basic Law of the country, organize a referendum about changing art. #116 or allow deputies of the House of Representatives make amendments to “The Code of judicial system and the status of judges”?
-- I know the answer to this question but I am not going to tell it to you now, sorry. They will say that Tsihinya is trying to put in his two cents worth in the discussion of the issue. So I’d better not answer it at all.
-- What do you think about the very idea of power accretion of the Constitutional Court? Is it necessary?
-- Bit it does not use its current powers that are guaranteed by the Constitution! First of all, it should make use of its efficiency in influencing a certain power. It should be done before speaking about any accretion of its power. It does not make use of what it has. So it seems paradoxical to me – they are speaking about power accretion while the court is not using the available power. That is strange!
-- Could you specify what the court is not doing regardless of its ability to do it?
-- No, I will not specify it.
-- Your former colleague from the Constitutional Court Valery Fadzeyeu suggested allowing citizens to turn to the Constitutional Court without having to go through the six institutions that have the right to do it. Do you think it should be done taking into account the fact that the institutions take their time appealing to the Constitutional Court?
-- The majority of foreign courts give the right to citizens and the legislation allows it. There is nothing fundamental about it. However, the suggestion itself is interesting.
-- New laws are being adopted with many holes existing in them. Now it is necessary to correct them. Do you think the Constitutional Court should conduct expertise of new laws before they are adopted?
-- It should be conducted but it is not the Constitutional Court that should do it. It will be fettered. Just imagine, I approve some legal act, add my remarks and suggestions, then lawmakers take it all into account and then it is sent to court by one of the initiators after it has been adopted. Sorry, but I have already expressed my opinion. I have added my remarks and suggestions. How can I conduct expertise on behalf of the Constitutional Court? I do not think that the Constitutional Court should be given this right.
-- The President made the Attorney General and the head of the Constitutional Court exchange their positions the other day. Is there so much in common in the work of the head of the Constitutional Court and of an investigator of the General Office of the Public Prosecutor that they can easily exchange positions?
-- We are talking about different issues. An investigator of the General Office of Public Prosecutor and the Constitutional Court are different. They do different jobs and have different functions.
