2020 Ukrainian constitutional crisis

In July 2020, 49 People's Deputy of Ukraine (47 of these were members of Opposition Platform — For Life[2][3]) appealed to the Constitutional Court with a motion to recognize unconstitutional the law on the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine of 7 June 2018.[4] On 16 September, the Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional certain provisions of the law on the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).[4] On 28 July it declared unconstitutional the Presidential decree of 16 April 2015 on the appointment of Artem Sytnyk as NABU Director.[4] On 27 October the court, on the motion of 47 legislators, the court recognized the provisions of the laws on e-declarations' vetting as unconstitutional and stripped the relevant watchdog, the National Agency for Prevention of Corruption (NACP) of powers to vet declarations and identify conflicts of interest.[4] This decision deprived the NACP of access to state registers required for vetting declarations of candidates for government offices, thus blocking the appointment of officials, including those elected in the October 2020 Ukrainian local elections.[4] The NABU responded by claiming that as a result of the court ruling all criminal cases probing inaccurate asset declaration would be closed, while officials exposed on abuse would avoid responsibility.[4] On 28 October the NACP shut down public access to the Unified State Register of Asset Declarations, which was restored overnight the following day in line with the Shmyhal Government decision following public outrage.[4]

The 27 October ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled invalidated much of Ukraine's 2014 anti-corruption reform as unconstitutional.[1] Following the decision President Volodymyr Zelensky warned that if parliament did not restore these anti-corruption laws, foreign aid, loans and a visa-free travel to the European Union were at risk. Governor Kyrylo Shevchenko of the National Bank of Ukraine reported that Ukraine will not receive the scheduled $700 million IMF load before the end of 2020 because of the issue. IMF assessment teams had not visited Ukraine for eight months, which is necessary for further IMF loan tranches to be released.[5][6] The European Union (EU) issued a statement that that stated the court’s decision called “into question a number of international commitments which Ukraine assumed in relation to its international partners, including the EU.”[2]

On 29 October President Zelensky submitted to the Ukrainian parliament a draft law, offering an early termination of powers of the Constitutional Court's entire composition.[4] Lawmakers rejected this bill, including several members of his Zelensky's ruling Servant of the People.[2][7] Some accused him of a power grab.[2][7] On 27 January 2021 Zelensky withdrew the bill.[8]

On 4 December 2020 the Ukrainian parliament restored anti-corruption legislation shut down by the court decision, when it reauthorised criminal penalties for officials who provide false information about their incomes.[9]

In December 2020 the Constitutional Court of Ukraine was unable to carry out its usual functions because of some justices boycotting the court.[10] On 29 December 2020 President Zelensky suspended the courts chairperson Oleksandr Tupytskyi for two months in an effort to end the crisis.[11] The following day the Constitutional Court stated it considered the President's decree "legally insignificant" and they did not plan to implement it.[7] The Prosecutor General's office had also asked President Zelensky to suspend Tupytskyi for two months after he failed to show up for police questioning.[12] Tupytskyi is under investigation of alleged attempts to influence a witness through bribery and providing false testimony three times in a case against a company that produces transport equipment in 2018 and 2019, when he served as deputy chairman of the Constitutional Court.[12] On 8 February 2021 the Kyiv District Administrative Court dismissed a lawsuit requested by Tupytskyi against the State Security Administration for not allowing him to work in the Constitutional Court.[13] The court noted that Tupytskyi had not provide evidence confirming the danger to "his rights and interests."[13]

• Corruption in Ukraine#Government actions
• Ukraine and the International Monetary Fund
• 2007 Ukrainian political crisis