On October 28, I filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. I requested to verify the compliance with the Constitution 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 under Article 55 of the Constitution?
A response arrived on November 2. More precisely, a letter resembling a response arrived: a 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 general terms. At the end, it is stated that citizens "can apply based on the above requirements."
What is not in 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 not indicated either. The arguments and attachments in the complaint were not evaluated with a single word.
Meanwhile, the new Constitutional Law, which entered into force on October 15, clearly defines the procedure for this case:
the complaint undergoes mandatory preliminary review, as a result of which a conclusion is prepared and considered in a court session (Article 49);
rejection can only be based on one of the seven grounds enumerated in the law (Article 50);
a ruling on acceptance or rejection is issued within one 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 collectively by the court (Articles 21, 24).
The letter sent to me does not answer any of these requirements. It is neither a ruling, nor a decision, nor a conclusion, meaning it is not considered a document 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 court review of the case ends," whereas according to Article 102, this period begins from the day the final judicial act is adopted.
As a result, my complaint is nowhere. It has neither been accepted nor rejected by a reasoned ruling. There is also 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 precisely to consider appeals openly, reasonably, and on time. If complaints are answered with general informative letters instead of rulings, even though the law is new, the practice will remain old.
I am asking the court for nothing more than what is written in the law: to review my complaint in the established manner and issue a reasoned ruling.
Lawyer: Shavkat Mavlyanov
