[ad_1]
The President’s Office reacted to the decision of the Kiev District Administrative Court (OASK) on the removal of the director of the National Anti-Corruption Office of Ukraine (NABU) Artem Sytnik. The OP believes that this decision cannot be considered final.
This was reported by the press service of the Presidency.
The president said that any disagreement around anti-corruption bodies should not affect the independence of the anti-corruption infrastructure. The OP also states that the decision can be appealed and NABU will continue to function as a full body.
“Based on NABU’s response to such messages, we declare that this decision cannot be considered final due to the fact that it will be appealed. Taking into account the response of Minister of Justice Denis Malyuska, we declare that NABU has been and continues to be a police agency. fully operational “- says the message.
It is also noted that the list of reasons for termination of the director of NABU is contained in current legislation. This list can only be changed by decision of the Verkhovna Rada, and not by the court.
Regarding the decision of the Constitutional Court, which recently recognized some provisions of the law “On the National Anti-Corruption Office of Ukraine” as incompatible with the Constitution, the President noted that it is final and is not subject to appeal. The OP expects that some provisions of the law will be adjusted in accordance with the Constitution.
“Regardless of how this decision is evaluated, for the people’s deputies there is an objective need to review the provisions of the law on NABU, adjusting them taking into account the constitutional norms. We hope that the people’s deputies do not lengthen this process,” says the message.
Let us remind you that on October 26, OASK decided to remove NABU Director Artem Sytnik from his position.
At the same time, the Kiev District Administrative Court gave Sytnik one month to step down as director of NABU.
Furthermore, RBC-Ukraine wrote that the Ministry of Justice would not comply with the OASK’s decision as it stated that there was no authority or legal basis for these changes. The department was recommended to modify the Unified Registry of Legal Persons of the State based on the aforementioned decision of the CCU.
.
[ad_2]