Today, the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the claims of the UIAA member to invalidate and cancel Order 622 in part.
This refers to paragraph 12.20 of the Instruction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs 622, which imposes on a citizen the obligation to forcibly return his or her property, which he or she has legally acquired and peacefully possesses within 15 days from the date of occurrence of other circumstances specified in this instruction.
In the “Sudarikov’s case” (hashtag in FB #CaseSudarikov), the permitting system revoked the permit of a bona fide owner, formally due to the absence of a medical certificate and a certificate of completion of courses in their case file (later it turned out that all the certificates were available).
In fact, the permit was revoked because Sudarikov refused to let armed inspectors into his home to check the safe without warning at night (21.30) with reference to Art. 30 of the Constitution (inviolability of the home).
Subsequently, Sudarikov was brought to justice for failure to comply with the clause. 12.20 Instructions. However, there is no law that would impose such obligations on the citizen and thus limit the rights. Therefore,the group of legal struggle for the right initiated several lawsuits in the case of Sudarikov, including the recognition of Mr. 12.20 – illegal, because there is no law.
The court of first instance chaired by Judge Arsiriy R.O. refused to recognize the provision of the Instruction as illegal, and decided to consider the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine “On the Right of Ownership of Certain Types of Property” of 1992 and the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 576 “On the Permit System” as such laws.
Instead, the panel of judges of the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal consisting of judges A.B. Parinov, P.M. Yegorova and I.O. Lichevetsky disagreed with this position and made a really strong-willed decision, at least partially restoring the hierarchy of law, and with it the rule of law.
The court ruling in the case of Mr. 12.20 Instructions
Obviously, the norm that in certain cases the owner of the weapon may be restricted in using it, for example, in case of suspicion of committing a crime, but such a procedure should be prescribed exclusively in the law.
In particular, at present, the suspect may be restricted in the use of weapons under Art. 148 of the CPC by the relevant court decision, and not by the inspector’s own will, which in the case of Sudarikov and many others is manifested as arbitrariness.
Therefore, once again we thank judges A.B. Parinov, N.M. Yegorova, I.O. Lychevsky, who in this case remained faithful to the oath and obeyed only the law, not the police instruction, thereby raising the authority of the Constitution.
Author: Vitaliy Kolomiets
Attorneys at law “Orekhovskyi and Kolomiets”