“The debasement of sovereignty”

Only recently Ukrainian media took up with the scandalous visit of French deputies to the occupied Crimea. Indeed, it was really quite an alarming development for Kyiv. After all, the EU has asserted and continues to declare the non-recognition of Crimea annexation and has imposed restrictions on the contacts with the peninsula, as well as the sanctions against Russia after their aggression in Donbas. Nevertheless, despite the warnings of Ukrainian officials, as well as of the French Foreign Ministry, a group of deputies from one of the European community’s key countries proceeded with their visit.

And now it became known that a group of Italian MPs also plans to visit Crimea. The delegations will consist of eight to ten people presided by Alessandro Di Battista, member of the Parliamentary Committee for Foreign Affairs. It appears that European deputies ignore both the sanctions of the EU concerning Crimea and the official notice by Kyiv that the visit on the peninsula would entail a ban on further entry to Ukraine.

However, a question of consistency might also be addressed to Ukraine in regard of its policy towards Crimea. In particular, it has to do with how our country, demanding the sanctions from Europe, complies with its own restrictive measures on Crimea, for the time being under Russian illegal occupation.

And as an example of such inconsistency might serve the recent decision of the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine that granted the cassation of Aeroflot – and nullified the decision of lower courts to impose fines on the Russian company for conducting flights to the annexed Crimea. In particular, the court has overridden the decrees of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv and the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeals in regard to one of the fines which amounts to 136,000 hryvnias. Previously in May this year, the State Aviation Service charged Aeroflot with almost 200 million hryvnias overall penalty. What is even more surprising in the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision is the resolution that “the primary and appellate courts did not manage to clarify the circumstances that are important for the judgment in this case.”

Ukraine started to impose punitive measures on Russian airlines that carry out flights to Crimea in summer of 2014, following the sanctions the European Union imposed on Dobrolet, Russian airline that operated on Crimea routes. In general, following the violations of the airspace over Crimea by Russian companies the State Aviation Service issued 3,493 resolutions totaling 475.048 million hryvnias in fines. As previously reported by the Ministry of Infrastructure, Ukrainian aviation authorities initiated the largest number of trials against “Aeroflot – Russian Airlines” (1,429 resolutions), “VIM-Avia” (784), “Transaero” (263), “Ural Airlines” (257), and “Globus” (208).

The Day asked the experts to comment on the political consequences of the court decision and suggest how Ukrainian authorities may put an end to the illegal tourism of European deputies to Crimea.

“WE MUST BE CONSISTENT IN EVERY RESPECT”

Refat CHUBAROV, MP of the Verkhovna Rada, head of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People:

“I drew the attention of my colleagues who are engaged in Crimean affairs to this court decision as I consider it as slap in our face. This decision indicates the presence of a blatant disagreement in our country on the evaluation of Russia as an aggressor. On the one hand we demand from the international community to tighten the sanctions and blockade any links with Crimea, while on the other we whitewash the Russian enterprises that defy such restrictions. Aeroflot is one of many Russian airlines that violate the sovereignty of Ukraine dozens of times a day by flying its planes to the occupied Crimea and breaking Ukrainian laws.

“The decision of the Supreme Administrative Court is a blow to the Ukraine’s sovereignty from the inside, coming from the judiciaries that should protect the law.

“The judges who made such decision should immediately resign from their posts. It is clear that they would not do that by themselves, but as soon as the session of the Parliament starts, we, the MPs, will be talking about it. It is a disgrace for Ukraine, they shouldn’t have done it.

“Regarding the recent visit of French deputies to Crimea, and the recent news of Italian deputies who want to do the same – those events are cut from the same cloth. If we continue in our inconsistency, the sovereignty of Ukraine will be debased – starting with the visits of individual MPs from other countries, then with such decisions by Ukrainian courts, and then with someone else encroaching on other territories of our country. That is what I call the debasement of sovereignty. We must be consistent in every respect of our policy in relations with Russia, of our policy towards the occupied territories, which are now controlled by the terrorists.

“How can we deal with all this? I think that the National Security and Defense Council should assume the full tactical and strategic coordination of all measures in relation to Crimea and the occupied territories. In the absence of a clear and proper coordination, as well as of a strategy itself, various government agencies and branches of government, including the judiciary, just wander in different directions, thus destroying the state.

“Of course, all ministries and departments should play a role, but somebody has to set things straight. I think this responsibility falls on the president and he should give the appropriate instructions to the National Security and Defense Council. And it should be a government body that would be the Cerberus in the positive meaning of the word, putting into place the officials that became presumptuous. And our Cerberus, standing on guard of the public interest, should be the National Security and Defense Council.”

“THE REACTION OF THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT BODIES ON THE FRENCH MP’S VISITS TO CRIMEA WAS TOO TIMID”

Andrii KLYMENKO, editor-in-chief of Black Sea News:

“Like many, I was bewildered over this decision of the Supreme Administrative Court. Surely, one can assume theoretically that Aeroflot, having an office in Kyiv, tried to influence the judiciary system and spared no money on lawyers who were successful to cling to some commas and interpretations of the Code.

“What kind of situation do we have now, based on this court decision? The following resolution: ‘the lower courts established the violation of the rules and order of use, etc. However, as the protocol lists the offenses committed, it does not clarify the circumstances in regard to the evidence of these offenses.’ And this wording raises many questions. Which circumstances there might be? Aircrafts fly according to the schedule, which is available at every airport. And it gives me a lot of doubts and suspicions.

“And what should be the reaction to the obvious violations by Russian companies, in this case – the Aeroflot airline? I think that the current practice in regard of the occupied Crimea should be written in codes, or at least into some kind of official explanation of the higher courts, for the appropriate verdicts not to be delayed. After all, we cannot send an undercover scout every time only to take photos and collect documental evidence.”

And how should Ukrainian authorities have responded on the visits of French deputies and senators to the occupied Crimea?

“The reaction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other government bodies on the French MP’s visits to Crimea was too timid. In this case, we are talking about the fact that these gentlemen have violated our Criminal Code, Article 332-1, which was introduced into the Criminal Code in April past year, when the new law on the occupied territories was passed. The article concerns the ‘violation of the order of entry into and/or departure from the temporarily occupied territory.’ And this entails three-year imprisonment; the same violation carried out following the explicit agreement by a group of persons or by an official using his position in authority will lead to the term of three to five years; and the same actions carried out by an organized group are punishable by imprisonment for the term from five to eight years. In my opinion, adequate reaction should have been as follows: The Prosecutor General’s Office or the prosecutor’s office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (which is located in Kyiv), should initialize criminal proceedings on those officials according to the aforementioned article, as it was an organized group, and a premeditated, public, ostentatious violation. And then they should ask to interrogate them in France, and if it is not possible – declare them wanted by the Interpol. Everything possible should have been made to have these people called in for questioning, to have them indicted. And that would be, in my opinion, an adequate reaction, which would discourage others from similar violations and at the same time show that Ukraine is not just going to scold and wave a finger at foreigners who commit a criminal offense.

“Why is this not being done? I think we should ask the prosecutor’s office of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or the Prosecutor General’s Office. After all, Heorhii Lohvynsky, MP, has recently expressed his opinion that it was necessary to open criminal proceedings against the French deputies for such an offense.

“And such actions do not require any political will – one just needs to execute the law. We have the fact that a group of citizens, the deputies of France, has organized a special trip – and, moreover, flew on a Russian charter provided by the so-called ‘Russian Peace Foundation.’ They did not pay for it with their own money. This is a case of a political corruption, which should be punished. For example, as it is done in the UK, if an MP flies somewhere on someone else’s account, he resigns. So, here we need to press the situation further, to make everyone understand that Ukraine will respond actively and harshly to any kind of such situations.”