Kiev, March 27, 2019
Photo: RIA-Novosti
The Kiev District Administrative Court, chaired by Judge Vitaly Katyuschenko, considered the claim of the Rule of Law NGO against President Petro Poroshenko yesterday, which states that the head of state has no right to interfere in Church affairs and to apply for autocephaly on behalf of all Orthodox Christians, reports the Union of Orthodox Journalists.
The case began in October, though it was delayed several times because Poroshenko and his administration simply ignored the court dates.
“The plaintiff asks the court to establish the lack of competence (powers) of the head of state to interfere in the activities of the Church and religious organizations, in particular, by signing and sending an appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on the provision of a tomos of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, which was further supported by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the relevant resolution,” the court’s October statement reads.
The court first heard the positions from each party in the case yesterday, with the Rule of Law lawyer attempting “to establish the lack of competence and authority of the President of Ukraine to act in this way.” In his speech, he stressed that the church is supposed to be separate from the state in Ukraine, as per the constitution, which means that the President went well beyond the powers granted to him.
The President was represented by a member of his administration who argued that, “In this case, there is no public-legal dispute and generally no public-legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, which, in turn, makes it impossible for the plaintiff to appeal to the court with these claims.”
Given that the defendant is the President, the matter should only be heard by the Supreme Court and thus was opened in the district court incorrectly, she argued.
Having heard the parties’ arguments, Judge Kotyuschenko announced that the administrative claim would be left without satisfaction. “In the opinion of the court, competent disputes should be considered between the subjects of official power, and on this basis the court did not satisfy this claim,” the judge said.
The site of the district court also states that the case was dismissed on the grounds that the wrong venue was chosen.
The lawyer for the Rule of Law NGO said that his party understands but disagrees with the judge’s point of view that the given case is possible only between parties of equal status and that they will continue the proceedings.
“The court wouldn’t be able to negate the constitution, so it refused on formal grounds… Simply put, the decision [of the President—O.C.] is so illegal that it does not fit into the format of any court… It seems to me that the court doesn’t want to make a decision on such a sensitive issue on the eve of the elections,” the lawyer commented.
Follow us on Facebook !
