Kostenko-led Rukh loses a round in court; faction must register under new name (07/18/99)

Kostenko-led Rukh loses a round in court; faction must register under new name

by Roman Woronowycz
Kyiv Press Bureau

KYIV - The Supreme Court of Ukraine on June 30 upheld the ruling of a lower court that in effect denies the splinter organization that formed after the division of the Rukh Party legal status as a political party.

In its decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the Kyiv Oblast Court that Yurii Kostenko had no legal standing to file a suit in which he claimed that his right to act as the justly elected chairman of Rukh was violated by a Ministry of Justice decision.

Mr. Kostenko is the leader of the wing of Rukh that ousted the late Vyacheslav Chornovil as chairman, causing a split in the party.

Mr. Kostenko filed his suit against the Ministry of Justice in April after it refused to act on amendments to the statutes of the Rukh wing that he came to lead, while accepting the amendment to the statutes of the competing wing of Rukh.

Under Ukrainian law the statutes of all parties and political organizations, as well as any subsequent changes to them, must be registered with the Ministry of Justice.

The Supreme Court decision noted that, in keeping with Ukrainian law, only a political organization as a whole, not individual members or leaders, have the right to bring a suit against the Ministry of Justice.

The high court also stated in its ruling that Mr. Kostenko showed neither sufficient proof of the denial of his rights nor the basis for the charges.

The court's decision was met with outrage from the leadership of the Kostenko-led party, which now must change its name and register with the Ministry of Justice as a new political entity.

The party's presidium released a statement on June 30 in which it said that it would not bow to what it considers political pre-election pressure by the government to bring the democratic and center-right leaning parties into the presidential fold. "No decision by the authorities will force Rukh members to give up their convictions or turn the party over to those people serving the oligarchic regime," read the statement.

The party leadership also accused the Supreme Court of yielding to pressure from the presidential administration, and the government of using Soviet-style tactics.

Ivan Lozovy, a member of the secretariat of the Kostenko-led party, said the court used illogical circular argumentation in its explanation. "According to the oblast court decision, Mr. Kostenko's rights could not have been violated because he was never officially registered by the Ministry of Justice as the chairman of the party," said Mr. Lozovy in explaining that it was absurd to argue that Mr. Kostenko had no right to bring suit against the ministry because it did not acknowledge him as representing Rukh.

"They completely obviated all the facts of the case because they were all on our side," added Mr. Lozovy.

Mr. Kostenko filed his complaint with the Kyiv Oblast Court after the Ministry of Justice ignored documents submitted by the 10th Congress of Rukh held on February 29, which elected him chairman of a Rukh that had taken the reins of power from Mr. Chornovil. It accepted only the statutes changes made by the second half of the Ninth Congress, which was held on March 7 by delegates loyal to the late Mr. Chornovil.

Mr. Kostenko had said earlier that he was particularly irked that the Ministry of Justice abbreviated a registration process that should have taken much longer to accept the statutes changes of the second half of the Ninth Congress, which he said was evidence that the decision was based on a political directive not on legal reasoning. He also accused the ministry of ignoring accepted bureaucratic procedures in the registration process.

The two competing Rukh congresses, which ended in the split of the nationwide party, were convened after a group of national deputies of the Rukh faction in the Verkhovna Rada led by Mr. Kostenko and Bohdan Boyko accused Mr. Chornovil, the long-time Rukh leader who died in a tragic car accident several weeks after the split, of violating party statutes and procedures.

The Rukh faction first ousted Mr. Chornovil as head of its parliamentary faction in mid-February. Then on February 20 the Central Leadership of Rukh voted to have Mr. Chornovil step down, which was followed by a hastily called Tenth Congress of Rukh on February 28.

Mr. Chornovil responded by calling his own congress, the second half of the Ninth Congress on March 7. A month after the second congress the Ministry of Justice registered the statutes changes of the Chornovil-led congress. The ministry has never acted on the documents submitted by the Kostenko political organization.

Mr. Kostenko's group must now submit documents to the Ministry of Justice to continue to be recognized officially as a political party - and it must do so under a new name. Thus far two suggestions have been submitted, according to Mr. Lozovy. "We will go forward, whether as the Ukrainian National Democratic Party, as [Ivan] Drach suggested, or maybe as the UNR, the Ukrainian National Rukh, as [Bohdan] Boyko suggested," explained Mr. Lozovy.

The two wings of Rukh have viciously bickered ever since the split. Mr. Kostenko's group has accused the Rukh faction formerly headed by Mr. Chornovil and now headed by Hennadii Udovenko of kow-towing to President Leonid Kuchma. In turn, the Kostenko-led faction has been accused of betraying the cause of the national democratic movement and of putting a priority on protecting their commercial self-interests.

The wing of the party led by Mr. Udovenko has been particularly emotional in its pronouncements, calling the "Kostenkivtsi" "traitors" and "pimps of the national Ukrainian idea."

Although the two parties - only one of which can now legally call itself Rukh - are far from close to an understanding on how they can unite to again wield their once formidable political clout, at least some hope remains. Dmytro Ponomarchuk, press secretary of the Udovenko-led Rukh, said on July 13 that reconciliation is the only possible course.

"We find it important that the courts recognized that only one Rukh exists. It is a victory for healthy reasoning," said Mr. Ponomarchuk. "This is the first step toward a decision that has to be made to reunite Rukh. It is a crisis of the leadership, not a crisis of the Rukh Party."

| Home Page |