Lawyers intend to appeal the judgement of the ECJ in Case Klymenko V Council of European Union
The European Court of Justice (hereinafter -ECJ) in Luxembourg in its judgement of 08.11.2017 in Case Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko V Council of European Union, in fact, validated the legality of the restrictive measures adopted against former officials of the government of Viktor Yanukovych in 2014-2015 yy.
By these restrictive sanctions, the Council of European Union decided not to call into question the clearly political grounds of the alleged pursuits against Oleksandr Klymenko. It is regrettable that the Court did not appreciate the lack of elements brought by the Prosecutor General’s Office and absence of further control by the Council of European Union.
Such statement was made by Marie Рhelippeau, a French lawyer, who represents the interests of Oleksandr Klymenko in the case brought before the ECJ against the background of the restrictive measures adopted against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, following the suppression of demonstrations in Independence Square in Kiev (Ukraine).
Lawyers intend to appeal the judgement of the ECJ of November 8, which dismissed the action of the applicant, Mr. Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko, who held the post of Minister for Revenue and Duties of Ukraine during 2013-2014.
The Court did not question the materials of the criminal proceedings, which are carried out by the Military Prosecutor’s office of Ukraine and considered the appeal of the Prosecutor General ‘s Office of Ukraine to be a reason for applying sanctions.
The defense is confident that the restrictive measures constitute a violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms, as well as breaching of legal presumptions.
Thus, one of the main claims of the lawyers is a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence by several Ukrainian authorities, who publicly declared that Oleksandr Klymenko had carried out criminal activities. The letters of the PGO on which the Council relied are further evidence of the breach of that principle.
Moreover, the defense reports that, the notifications of suspicion concerning the offences which Oleksandr Klymenko was alleged to have committed were not validly served on him by the PGO. Accordingly, he cannot be regarded as a person subject to criminal proceedings a priori. Such statement is obviously reflected in the court decisions concerning irregularities in those notifications.
Besides, the defense states that the restrictive measures taken against Oleksandr Klymenko constitute a disproportionate restriction of his fundamental rights to property and reputation. First of all, the restrictive measures were imposed without enough sufficient procedural safeguards enabling him to put his case effectively to the Council.
The full judgment of the ECJ of November 8, 2017 is available HERE.
Let us remind, Oleksandr Klymenko, Former Minister for Revenue and Duties of Ukraine and leader of the “Uspishna Kraina” party, has repeatedly stated that all the claims of Ukrainian authorities against him are related to persecution based on political motives.
In June 2016, it became known that the EU sanctions, which were imposed on Klymenko in April 2014, were annulled. Moreover, the EU Council should reimburse court costs. Earlier, Ukrainian lawyers, who represent interest of Klymenko, emphasized that the politician does not have the status of a suspect. Accordingly, all the actions of the Prosecutor General’s Office, which are carried out against the politician, are illegal.