Lawyers for Petro Poroshenko have stated that the authorities may be exerting pressure on Supreme Court judges who are scheduled to announce a decision on April 3 regarding the fifth President’s lawsuit over illegal sanctions. They also recalled that government representatives are dragging out the judicial process in every possible way, which began more than a year ago. Theoretically, this case should have been considered within two months, the lawyers say.
“The Code of Administrative Procedure requires the subject of power, as soon as a citizen appeals to the administrative court, to immediately present all evidence of the legality of their actions. That is, in our case, President of Ukraine Zelenskyy should have provided his justifications for why he did this 14 months ago, after he made this illegal decision on sanctions. We understand that President Zelenskyy had no legal grounds for imposing sanctions on Petro Poroshenko then, and he has none now,” Golovan states.
“Both President Zelenskyy and his entourage, as well as those representing him in the administrative court, understand that their position is a losing one, that the actions to impose sanctions were illegal, and therefore the only option for them is to delay the process,” says the lawyer.
“Unfortunately, regarding the hearing scheduled for April 3, we are not convinced that it will even take place. Observing the tactics of our opponents, we are convinced that something will happen. We don’t know what yet. Someone will get sick, there will be an air raid alert, or the power will go out. I would like to be wrong, but we are not in a situation where we can simply hope that everything will be fine. We are making a public appeal regarding the fact that there is a hearing on April 3,” Poroshenko’s lawyer notes.
“We have reasons to fear that pressure may be exerted on the court. Realizing that the President cannot expect to drag out this process indefinitely, we fear that actual pressure on the judges may occur. That the situation is no longer just about delaying the process and avoiding a loss by evading a court decision, but that such pressure may actually be taking place. For us, a certain indicator will be whether this process is again moved from the main hall—which allows for the accommodation of listeners, the press, and diplomats who attend this process—or whether it will again be moved to a small hall that physically cannot hold everyone. And if we hear again that there are ‘valid’ reasons for a recess or for postponing the hearings, society and the media will perceive such statements critically. Because this is a marker of the abnormality of this process. It concerns not only Poroshenko; it concerns the general situation in the country,” emphasizes lawyer Ilya Novikov.
“Sanctions were presented from the very beginning by President Zelenskyy primarily as a tool of international influence. We depend on our partners, on Europeans, regarding the question of whether sanctions are effective or merely decorative. And the sanctions against Poroshenko—the decree enacting the NSDC decision—contain a clause stating that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine is obliged to inform partners and ask them to duplicate the sanctions. The sanctions against Poroshenko were not duplicated and will never be duplicated. And the process currently taking place in our court is being monitored and followed. Currently, sanctions are only a decoration that can work as a tool of pressure on the internal opposition,” Novikov states. He also reported that the European Court of Human Rights has accepted Petro Poroshenko’s lawsuit for consideration.
“The main lawsuit to recognize the sanctions as illegal has not yet been considered by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, but the case as a whole—since it also concerns our observation brought before the Supreme Court regarding whether it is a normal situation when the effect of a sanctions decree cannot be suspended. We were told no, presidential decrees are not suspended at all. Currently, the ECHR, in a very unusual manner—because usually such cases are not considered at this stage—has opened proceedings, of which it notified Petro Poroshenko’s representatives,” Novikov noted. “This means that this case as a whole is already under consideration by the ECHR, which signifies increased attention to our situation,” the lawyer emphasized.
“When the world observes such processes of ours, it understands that the implementation of the principle of the rule of law in Ukraine is still a long way off,” Ihor Golovan concludes.