TIMELINES IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES CONCERNING ENTRY INTO, SERVICE IN AND DISMISSAL FROM THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

Abstract

This article examines the issue of procedural timelines in cases concerning the entry into, service in, or dismissal from the diplomatic service by Ukrainian citizens. The paper addresses the restoration of procedural timelines, the list of valid grounds for such restoration, and the determination of the moment when a person knew or could have known of rights being infringed. A procedural timeline is the period during which a person has the right to bring a claim before an administrative court. Timelines serve the following functions: ensuring compliance with the principle of legal certainty, preventing the abuse of procedural rights, disciplining parties to the proceedings, and preventing the burdening. Usually, disputes concerning the entry into, service in, or dismissal from the diplomatic service of Ukrainian citizens are subject to a one-month timeline, as specified in Article 122(5) of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. The key starting point for the procedural timeline is the moment when the person became aware, or ought to have become aware, of the infringement of rights. This is usually the moment an order or directive is served, the date a letter is received, or the date of the individual’s final pay settlement upon dismissal. In this regard, the courts of Ukraine take into account both the fact that the individual became aware of the infringement of rights and the possibility for the individual to have discovered the infringement (should have become aware of it). Article 123 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine provides for the possibility of restoring procedural timelines where there are valid reasons. However, the legislation does not specify a list of reasons recognised as valid, and whether reasons are valid is, in practice, determined at the discretion of the court hearing the case. We recommend amending the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine by adding Article 123-1, which sets out a list of valid reasons for missing a deadline (for example, illness, mobilisation, the need to care for a close relative, hostilities, etc.). Such a list should be non-exhaustive, as there may be grounds that the legislator cannot foresee in advance. The existence of clearly defined procedural timelines does not restrict an individual’s right to bring a case before the court, but rather promotes compliance with the principle of legal certainty and ensures discipline amongst the parties to the dispute.