Talk:2007 Ukrainian parliamentary election/metadiscussion

Piece removed from the article

The authority of the President to dismiss Ukraine's parliament has been challenged in Ukraine's Constitutional Court amidst concern that the President's actions are unconstitutional in that he has exceeded his authority to dismiss Ukraine's parliament.

An appeal against each of the president's decrees has been lodged in the Constitutional Court.

On April 19 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution in consideration of a report titled Functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. ^{(Items 13 and 14)} stated:

The Assembly deplores the fact that the judicial system of Ukraine has been systematically misused by other branches of power *** (they ignore the fact that a judge was paid 12 million in apartments to support their own point of view )and that top officials do not execute the courts’ decisions, which is a sign of erosion of this crucial democratic institution. An independent and impartial judiciary is a precondition for the existence of a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Hence the urgent necessity to carry out comprehensive judicial reform, including through amendments to the constitution. The Assembly reiterates that the authority of the sole body responsible for constitutional justice – the Constitutional Court of Ukraine – should be guaranteed and respected. Any form of pressure on the judges is intolerable and should be investigated and criminally prosecuted. On the other hand, it is regrettable that in the eight months of its new full composition, the Constitutional Court has failed to produce judgments, thus failing to fulfil its constitutional role and to contribute to resolving the crisis in its earlier stages, which undermines the credibility of the court. There is an urgent need for all pending judgments, and in particular the judgment concerning the constitutionality of the Presidential Decree of 2 April 2007, to be delivered. If delivered, the latter should be accepted as binding by all sides.

The associated explanatory report under the sub-heading of Pressure on the courts expressed concern that

"Several local courts have made decisions to suspend the Presidential Decree only to then withdraw them, allegedly under pressure from the presidential secretariat." ^{(item 67)}

In emphasis the report ^{(item 68)} stated

This is a worrying tendency of legal nihilism that should not be tolerated. It is as clear as day that in a state governed by the rule of law judicial mistakes should be corrected through appeal procedures and not through threats or disciplinary sanctions

• On April 30, on the eve of the Constitutional Court's ruling on the legality of the president's decree dismissing Ukraine's parliament, President Yushchenko, in defiance of the PACE resolution of April 19 intervened in the operation of Ukraine's Constitutional Court by summarily dismissing two Constitutional Court Judges, Syuzanna Stanek and Valeriy Pshenychnyy, for allegations of "oath treason." His move was later overturned by the Constitutional Court and the judges were returned by a temporary restraining order issued by the court.

File:SusannaStanyk .jpg

Syuzanna Stanik - Constitutional Court public released photograph

• On May 16,Viktor Yushchenko, for a second time, issued another decree dismissing the two Constitutional Court Judges Syuzanna Stanek and Valeriy Pshenychnyy.

• On May 17, the Constitutional Court Chairman Ivan Dombrovsky resigned and Valeriy Pshenychnyy was appointed chairman in replacement.

• On May 23, The Constitutional Court of Ukraine acted to prevent the president's undue influence on the court system. The court's ruling was made after Viktor Yushchenko unduly sought to influence the court by illegally dismissing two Constitutional Court judges Valeriy Pshenychnyy and Syuzanna Stanek for allegations of "oath treason.".

Pursuant to Article 149 of Ukraine's Constitution Judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine are subject to the guarantees of independence and immunity and to the grounds for dismissal from office envisaged by Article 126, and the requirements concerning incompatibility as determined in Article 127, paragraph two of Ukraine's Constitution

• On July 20 Susanna Stanek won an appeal against the President in the Shevchenko district court of Kiev. The Court ruled the President's actions illegal and reinstated Ms Stanek's entitlement as a member of Ukraine's Constitutional Court. According to the ruling, the President is obliged to cancel his decree on discharge of Mrs. Stanek.." The other two judges who were also illegally dismissed had previously tendered their resignations and as such were not subject to the courts order.

Following the president's intervention the Constitutional Court still has not ruled on the question of legality of the president's actions.

Stepan Havrsh, the President's appointee to the Constitutional Court, in prejudgment of the courts decision and without authorization from the Court itself, commented in an interview published on July 24

I cannot imagine myself as the Constitutional Court in condition in which three political leaders signed a political/legal agreement on holding early elections, which also stipulates the constitutional basis for holding the elections... How the court can agree to consider such a petition under such conditions.

Olexander Lavrynovych, Ukrainian Minister for Justice, in an interview published on Aug 3 is quoted as saying

According to the standards of the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine, these elections should have been recognized invalid already today. But we understand that we speak about the State and about what will happen further in this country. As we've understood, political agreements substitute for the law, ... The situation has been led to the limit, where there are no possibilities to follow all legal norms.

UkraineToday 23:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fake usere id vandalsing pages=

Fake user id Craats newly registerd impersonating a current user is curre4ntly vandelising the main article by removeing content and maing unsupported comments comments .., This user could be associated with User Tag:Odessa. Request that ip and user name be reviewed and bans placed accodinally. UkraineToday 21:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are false and baseless. Your strong political bias does not allow you to have neutral point of view. --TAG 23:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not allowed to delete my and others people comments without permissions per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments. --23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fake use id poster comments below

Attempts to alter this page are continually replaced by the original. This article is politically biased. The pure data is acceptable, but not the politically slanted opinion. Wikipedia is not a front for political or other action, nor for the promotion of personal websites. Craats 20:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Continues metadiscussion about the constitutional challanges

Under Article 82 of Ukraine's Constitution the parliament ceases to be competent with lessthen two-thirds of its membership being elected. Article 90 section 3 authorizes the President to terminate the authority of the Parliament if the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine fails, within thirty days of a single regular session, to commence its plenary meetings. The next regular session of the parliament was scheduled to commence on September 4 pursuant to Article 83 clause one "Regular sessions of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine commence on the first Tuesday of February and on the first Tuesday of September each year."

• On August 29 Olexander Moroz, Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament issues notices in accordance with Article 83 of Ukraine's constitution concerning the next regular session of parliament scheduled for September 4. Opposition members have indicated that they will not attend the scheduled plenary session as they have tendered their resignation.

Ukraine's President, Viktor Yushchenko, and the opposition parties, Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko and Our Ukraine, have all indicated that they will not be attending the planned plenary session on September 4 as they consider the parliament to be incompetent following the resignation of opposition members in July 2007. The governing parties, Party of Regions the Communist Party of Ukraine and the Socialist Party of Ukraine have all indicated that they will participate. Issues to be considered include proposed changes to Ukraine's constitution, the removal of immunity from public officials, the budget and impeachment of Ukraine's president.

• On August 30 Justice Minister of Ukraine, Olexander Lavrynovych, indicated that that early parliamentary elections on September 30 may not take place if 300 or more members of parliament attend the next session of parliament. The above time line data was removed WHY? No discussion not rational no argument. Bias editing maybe along with fake user ids... UkraineToday 00:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of wasting my time discussing something like this. First of all, you're saying that if you quit from a job (let's say you worked at an office) and returned there you'd be allowed to continue working? That doesn't make any sense at all. The 150+ people quit from parliament, they are NOT deputies anymore. Sure, I can walk into parliament and do button-pushing. But will it count? I hope not. — Alex^(U|C|E) 00:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, I'm tired of you accusing other people of being sockpuppets. Please stop it. — Alex^(U|C|E) 00:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I recall you placeing a sockpuppert listing on my account. 21:02, 22 August 2007 Akhristov (Talk | contribs) (4,672 bytes) (sock) (undo) The evidence is clear and beyond doubt the user account was created to vandalise the the content of the main article and now you are seeking to remove relavant infmratyion from review. Clean up more like aniation and removal of the evidence. Trying to hide the facts about the legality of the elction and the actiss of the president. UkraineToday 00:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I placed that tag only because it was placed there eariler by another user. If you're trying to get revenge, stop it. And quit adding your bias to the article namespace, you don't own Wikipedia. — Alex^(U|C|E) 00:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please`there is no malicious or suggestion of revenge. Please refraine form such usage of language. And please do not remove my comments and information from the discussion pages. It could be a undectected error as a result of a spelling check. but it most certianly was not a deliberate attack or act of revenge. unlike the attack you sanction earlier. UkraineToday 00:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What attack? What in the world are you talking about? And I don't take the fact that you're saying other users are sockpuppets of Serafin just because your user page was tagged with the same message as an accidental coincidence. — Alex^(U|C|E) 01:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your false ascertion that I was seeking revenge. see your comment above UkraineToday 01:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, choose wisely who you label a sockpuppet next time. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)