On October 28, I filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. I requested a check on the constitutionality of the norms that served as the basis for the dismissal of pedagogical employees following certification results.
The issue was clear: is it possible to dismiss a person based on a departmental document that has not undergone state registration and has not been officially published? If such a document cannot be contested in court at all, does this comply with the right to judicial protection stipulated in Article 55 of the Constitution?
A response arrived on November 2. More precisely, a letter resembling a response arrived: letter No. 02-01/2073 from Judge R. Ismaylov.
What is in the letter? Articles 4, 42, and 43 of the Constitutional Law are rewritten in a general manner. At the end, it is stated that citizens "may apply based on the above requirements."
What is missing from the letter? It is not stated whether the complaint was accepted or rejected. If it was rejected, the grounds for rejection and which requirement was not met are also not indicated. The arguments and attachments in the complaint were not evaluated with a single word either.
Meanwhile, the new Constitutional Law, which entered into force on October 15, clearly defines the procedure for this work:
the complaint undergoes mandatory preliminary review, a conclusion is prepared based on it, and it is considered in a court session (Article 49);
rejection can only be based on one of the seven grounds listed in the law (Article 50);
a ruling on acceptance or rejection is issued within a month, and a copy of the rejection ruling is sent to the applicant within five days (Articles 50, 51);
this issue is decided not by a single judge, but by the court collegially (Articles 21, 24).
The letter sent to me does not answer any of these requirements. It is neither a ruling, a decision, nor a conclusion, meaning it is not considered an act of the Constitutional Court under the law. Even the deadline is indicated incorrectly: the letter states that the one-year period is calculated from "the day the consideration of the case in court ended," whereas according to Article 102, this period begins from the day the final court act is adopted.
As a result, my complaint is nowhere. It has neither been accepted nor rejected with a well-founded ruling. There is no document to appeal against, because the official document itself does not exist.
This is not just about my case. The Constitutional Court is the last hope of a citizen. The new law was adopted specifically to consider appeals openly, reasonably, and in a timely manner. If complaints are answered with general informative letters instead of rulings, the practice will remain old even if the law is new.
I am asking the court for nothing more than what is written in the law: to consider my complaint in the established manner and issue a reasoned ruling.
Advocate: Shavkat Mavlyanov
