On October 28, I filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court. I asked to check the compliance with the Constitution of the norms that served as the basis for the dismissal of pedagogical staff based on the results of certification.
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 it is completely impossible to challenge such a document in court, does this comply with the right to judicial protection stipulated in Article 55 of the Constitution?
A response came on November 2. More precisely, a letter resembling a response arrived: a letter from judge R. Ismaylov numbered 02-01/2073.
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 «can 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 even a single word.
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);
the 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 by the court collegially (Articles 21, 24).
The letter I received does not meet any of these requirements. It is neither a ruling, nor 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 by a reasoned ruling. There is no document to appeal against, because there is no official document itself.
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 in a timely manner. If complaints are answered with general informational 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
