Officials were forced to look for other grounds to ignore the appeals of incapacitated persons.
With the words of the title, it is now possible to modernize the well-known verse of the patients from one special institution to a “dear transfer”. After all, the Constitutional Court has defended their rights to appeal. More precisely, the rights of those who were found to be incapacitated by court.
“The mind is spreading into pieces …”
In order to prove the discriminatory nature of the restrictions set forth in Part 2 of Article 8 and Part 4 of Article 16 of the Law “On the Treatment of Citizens”, the CC laid out various constitutional norms. And, of course, the Court mentioned the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
First of all, in the decision of 10.11.2018 №8-r / 2018 noted that the right to appeal provides the opportunity for citizens to participate in the management of state and public affairs. In this way, it provides the influence on the improvement of the work of state authorities and local self-government bodies, enterprises, institutions and organizations irrespective of the forms of ownership. And, finally, this is one way of defending rights and legitimate interests, that is, the struggle for justice.
At the same time, recognizing a person as incapacitated does not mean automatic deprivation of his legal capacity. This follows from the Court’s judgment of 01.06.2016 №2-rp / 2016.
The CC then reminded of the inadmissibility of discrimination, in particular on the grounds of health condition. After all, differences in privileges or restrictions on different categories of individuals, defined by law, cannot be related to the features provided for in Part 2 of Article 24 of the Constitution. And the restriction of constitutional rights should be established solely on the basis of the provisions of the Basic Law, have a legitimate aim, be conditioned by the social necessity, proportionate and reasonable.
“There are not enough real violent people…”
As is known, mental illnesses are characterized by periods of exacerbation and remission, that is, as noted in the judgment of the Court, “they can change dynamically”. Therefore, at moments of enlightenment, a person is quite capable of realizing the real state of affairs and, accordingly, starting to seek justice. Therefore, it should have the right to independently, and not through guardians, to apply to officials with complaints and proposals.
Especially the person who sends the letter to the official should not indicate his limited capacity. It is only necessary to check this fact when it needs a certain legal relationship.
In order not to respond to every lamentation like the mentioned verse, it is enough for bureaucrats to be guided by the general rule. And, as the CC in fact advises, to refuse, if “it will be revealed the applicant’s inability to deliberately explain the nature of the issues raised and adhere to other requirements for appeals”.
However, there may be problems with the first sign, because for such a conclusion it is necessary to have professional training. After all, according to philosophers, “not every individual who critically metaphorizes abstraction can refute the tendencies of paradoxical emotions”. In fact, they demonstrate the speeches of some domestic politicians, the essence of which is difficult to understand not only from the point of view of banal erudition. Although the court did not recognize them as incapacitated, which allowed them to achieve high positions.
“Maybe it’s better about a reactor?”
Who benefits from this decision is “Ukrposhta”, because those whose rights to appeal the CC have just protected will increase its profits. However, the former restrictions are unlikely to interfere with such correspondence. But, having become acquainted with the progressive verdict of the Court, this category of citizens will probably become even more active in seeking the truth.
However, the positions of the single body of constitutional jurisdiction can be used to refute other restrictions or additional conditions of implementation, such as the rights to social protection for settlers, subsidies, benefits and social guarantees, etc.
In the end, is there no discrimination as a “lustration” law that introduced restrictions for a particular group of persons only on the basis of the period of their stay on public service, that is, in fact, om the basis of their political convictions? Although no court has established any restrictions on the pursuit of certain activities for them. And lustration is not entirely related with the state of health of civil servants. However, proceedings opened by the CC in respect of such appeals for the fourth year are not moving further discussion about the closed part.
Instead, in order to respond to the ombudsman’s submission, the Court took less than a year. The rule of law is: in a hurry to help those who do not even realize this concern, and, on the contrary, compels them to tolerate the arbitrariness of the legislature of those who count on protection.