The Committee on Legislative Support of Law Enforcement recommends that the Verkhovna Rada should adopt in the second reading and in entirety the draft law on the prosecutor’s office

Information Department of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Secretariat
05 June 2014, 14:54

Presenting the bill (Reg. No. 3541), the Committee Chair Andrii Kozhemiakin informed that in the course of adjustment of the bill, 882 amendments were received, of which 274 were considered either in full, or partially and 608 – were rejected. 

The Venice Commission prepared the opinion of June 2 to the text of the bill, elaborated in the Committee for the second reading, regarding the extent of consideration of its previous opinion of September 19, 2013. The opinion includes 229 proposals with the majority of which the Committee agreed, and they were upheld by the Committee members by means of voting. The working group was entrusted to make the respective specifications to the Comparison table.

Thereat, the Committee did not uphold the proposal of the Venice Commission concerning article 35 of the bill on election of the Prosecutor General for the term of 7 years. The applicable Constitution stipulates election of the Prosecutor General for the period of 5 years. 

The Venice Commission recommended exclude the provision regarding vote of no confidence to the Prosecutor General in the Verkhovna Rada, as well as the provision to grant a hearing to report, which, experts believe, increases the risk of political pressure. 

The Committee did not agree to this proposal.

The discussion was held in regard to the status of qualification and disciplinary commissions that will be established and will, in line with the law, consider appeals on bringing prosecutors to disciplinary responsibility. It was noted that this function is now being performed by the Higher Council of Justice.

Committee Chair Andrii Kozhemiakin stressed that all the proposals that were either taken into account, or not will be discussed in the session hall.

Participants of the hearings generally believe that these inconsistencies should not influence adoption of the law in entirety. They deem that these problems could be settled in the course of amending the Constitution. Thus, the only optimal decision in this situation would be the soonest possible amending of the Constitution.