The Constitutional Court, while considering the complaint, drew attention to the fact that such financial restrictions violate the principle of access to court, enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine. This was confirmed by international experience, when in a number of European countries the approach to determining the court fee theory and practice rate is based on not creating obstacles for citizens who want to protect their rights.
In fact, the right to access justice is not a simple legal postulate
Contains a theory and practice deep social content that requires a constant balance between the interests of the state and the rights of citizens. If states do not ensure this balance, the judicial system will become inaccessible to those who cannot afford to pay significant amounts for filing lawsuits or cassation appeals.
International experience shows that countries where court fees are a investor data barrier have long since begun theory and practice to take measures to reduce them or to identify mechanisms that allow a larger number of citizens to apply to court. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stated that high court fees, which make the judicial process inaccessible to persons with low incomes, violate the fundamental right to access to justice. This issue is also relevant for Ukraine, where the financial capabilities of a significant part of the population can become a serious barrier to justice.
Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine: what has changed?
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine, having considered the case of Petro Kontorsky, concluded that the established court fee rate does not comply with the principle of proportionality . This decision means that productstar offers an the legislator must reconsider the approach to determining court fee rates so as not to limit citizens’ access to justice, in particular in the case of cassation appeals.
In its decision, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine emphasized the need to strike a fair balance between the public interest in obtaining funding for justice and the private interest in paying a reasonable court fee. In other aub directory words, the fee rate should be such as not to jeopardize a citizen’s right to access the courts.
