Court leaves without consideration Constitutional Court’s UAH 318,000 claim against LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS client Oleksandr Tupytskyi

The LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS team successfully represented former judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Oleksandr Tupytskyi in a dispute concerning the recovery of UAH 318,584.97. The court refused to renew the Constitutional Court’s time limit for filing an administrative claim and left the claim without consideration.

Background to the dispute

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine filed a claim seeking to recover UAH 318,584.97 from Oleksandr Tupytskyi, relying on the findings of an audit conducted by the Accounting Chamber regarding the calculation and payment of judicial remuneration.

One of the key issues in the case was whether the Constitutional Court had complied with the statutory time limit for bringing its claim before the administrative court.

The claimant argued that the grounds for filing the claim had arisen only in 2025 and asked the court to renew the missed procedural deadline.

LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS’ position

The lawyers of LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS demonstrated that the Constitutional Court had possessed the information necessary to bring the claim as early as 2023, when the results of the Accounting Chamber’s audit were approved.

Accordingly, it was from that point that the Constitutional Court had an objective opportunity to apply to the administrative court within the statutory time limit.

The team also argued that the Constitutional Court’s earlier erroneous filing of the claim with a civil court could not justify renewal of the deadline. By the time that claim was filed, the time limit for bringing the case before the administrative court had already expired.

Court’s decision

The court agreed with the arguments presented by LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS and found that the Constitutional Court had been aware of the grounds for bringing the claim since 2023.

The court did not consider the reasons cited by the Constitutional Court for missing the deadline to be valid. Nor did the earlier filing with a court of a different jurisdiction provide grounds for renewing the procedural time limit.

As a result, the court refused to renew the Constitutional Court of Ukraine’s time limit for filing the administrative claim and left its claim for the recovery of UAH 318,584.97 without consideration.

The case demonstrates the practical importance of complying with procedural time limits in public law disputes. These requirements apply equally to all parties to proceedings, including public authorities. An error in determining the proper jurisdiction does not eliminate the consequences of missing a statutory deadline if that deadline had already expired at the time of filing.