On September 3, Members of Parliament adopted in the second reading and as a whole Draft Law No. 11386, which addresses the problem of abuse of procedural rights by parties to court proceedings.
The new law introduces amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, the Criminal Code, and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine to ensure respect for the court and expedite the consideration of criminal proceedings.
Among other things, MPs increased fines for contempt of court, as well as monetary penalties that may be imposed for violations of certain obligations by participants in criminal proceedings.
According to the latest comparative table, after the law’s adoption, the maximum fine for a first offense of contempt of court will rise to UAH 3,400 (previously UAH 2,550). If a person fails to appear when summoned, for example by an investigating judge or the court, they may now face a fine ranging from UAH 3,028 to UAH 12,112 (previously from UAH 1,514 to UAH 6,056).
However, the adopted law still contains provisions that will require further refinement. In particular, due to the amendments introduced:
- the burden on judges may increase due to the requirement to consider challenges in criminal cases within 24 hours, as well as because a judge other than the one who imposed the penalty will be responsible for canceling it;
- the issue of not holding individuals administratively responsible for contempt of court will persist, as, despite the increase in fines, the procedure for imposing them remains imperfect;
- the number of postponed sessions in criminal cases is unlikely to decrease significantly, as the court will still lack the authority to fine defenders for failure to appear.
We previously analyzed this draft law and emphasized the need to address these shortcomings, noting in particular that the procedure for imposing administrative liability for contempt of court must be improved. Currently, cases of contempt are reviewed by the presiding judge in the case where the offense occurred, which raises doubts about the impartiality of the decision. Therefore, we recommended that Parliament stipulate such cases be transferred to another judge.
The issue of abuse of procedural rights and the limited means of addressing it is becoming increasingly acute in high-level corruption cases. We therefore expect Parliament to resolve this matter in the near future, and for the adopted Draft Law No. 11387 to become only the first step in that direction.
