As soon as the desire to punish CC judges began to fade, MPs started introducing initiatives, which would both comply with the Constitution and allow to block the work of the CC or at least make the decision making the process more complicated.
Halyna Yanchenko introduced the draft law #4308
, which provides for the classical solution used by the American Congress – to limit the funding of the CC. The MP suggested to cut the funding of the CC and transfer these funds to the Ministry of Education and Science and direct them on providing additional funding of educational programs in particular development of the infrastructure of the educational institutions and subventions of the educational institutions on the demarcation line with the occupied by Russia territories.
Shortly after, MPs from the "Sluha Narod"', "Holos" factions and "Dovira" group proposed their own way of complicating the work of the CC. They introduced the draft law #4311
(draft law of Korniyenko/Yurchyshyn) envisages that the CC has the authority to hold constitutional proceedings only if it consists of 17 judges (currently this number is 12, i.e. 2/3 of its composition). If this draft law is adopted, the work of the CC will be completely blocked until the appointing bodies fill in at least two vacancies in the CC as now there are only 15 CC judges. The draft law does not concern the issue of the quorum necessary for hearings and adopting decisions. More detailed analysis of the draft law can be found here
The proposed model completely blocks the work of the CC for an indefinite time, which brings a threat to the effectiveness of the check and balances system. In case the Parliament adopts an unconstitutional law, e.g. the law, which confirms the subjectivity of the occupation administrations, three will be no one to rule its unconstitutionality.
Two alternative draft laws #4311-1
were submitted by the MPs Fris and Chorny respectively (both are members of "Sluha Narodu" faction). The first alternative draft law envisages that the CC has the authority only if it comprises "2/3rd of judges" instead of "12 judges". 12 judges is a ⅔ majority of the constitutional composition of the CC. Therefore, it is unclear what exactly the author of the draft law had in mind. The draft law provides for the change of the wording and completely changes the context of the provision however, in the opposite direction.
If this draft law is adopted, the CC will always have the authority as it will be determined by the number of current judges and not by the constitutional composition of the court. In other words, if the number of judges will be less than a minimum required for adoption of a decision (10 votes), the CC will still have the authority, but would not have a possibility to adopt decisions.
Such an approach contradicts the very sense of the authority of the body – the body cannot have the authority and at the same time, be deprived of the possibility to adopt decisions. The alternative draft law introduced by MP Chorny provides for the reduction of the number of judges needed for the CC's authority from 12 to 10.
Another way to complicate the process of adopting decisions by the CC is provided by the draft law #4317
introduced by the MPs from "Sluha Narodu" (Ionushas/Arahamiya). The authors suggest changing the requirements for the adoption of the decisions of the CC. In particular, they suggest that at least 12 instead of the current 10 votes are necessary to adopt the decision.
One more initiative introduced by the MPs from "Sluha Narodu", "Batkivschyna", "Holos" factions and "Dovira" group is the draft law #4319
. The first authors of the draft law are Olha Sovhyra and Fedir Venislavsky. Both are representatives of the Parliament and the President (respectively) in the CC. Therefore, the probability of the adoption of these draft laws is relatively high.
The draft law provides for an increase of the votes, necessary for the adoption of the decision of the CC from 10 to 12. In case, when hearings are held in Senates, the decision can be adopted not by 2/3rd of the number of judges participating in the hearing, but by at least 6 judges, i.e. 2/3rd of the total number of judges in the Senate. In addition, referring to the practice of other countries, authors suggest that the Rules of Procedure of the CC should be established by the law.
At the same time, the draft law does not provide for the mechanism of functioning of the CC by the time the law on the Rules of Procedure is adopted by the Parliament. If the respective provisions are not included in the draft law and it is adopted, it can fully block the work of the CC until the new Regulation is adopted by the Parliament. As mentioned above, blocking the work of the CC is dangerous in terms of preventing the Parliament from adopting the deliberately unconstitutional decisions.