The Constitutional Court did not find legal grounds to check the constitutionality of the norm of the Entrepreneurial Code regarding the personal property of the testator

The Constitutional Court has preliminarily examined the appeal of a citizen on the constitutionality of paragraphs 1, 2 of Article 31 and paragraph 4 of Article 32 of the Entrepreneurial Code of October 29, 2015.

It follows from the materials of the appeal that after the death of her spouse, who was engaged in entrepreneurial activity, the subject of the appeal was entitled to 1/3 of the inherited property. In connection with disagreement with a certain share, she filed a lawsuit in court demanding to recognize the certificate of the notary on the inheritance of the said share as invalid. In the applicant's opinion, the property acquired as part of her personal entrepreneurial activity was their common joint property and, accordingly, the issue of determining the share after the death of her spouse should be resolved differently.

Having studied the appeal, the Constitutional Court drew attention to the fact that the subject of the appeal actually expresses disagreement with the judicial acts in terms of refusal to recognize the certificates of right to inheritance under the law as invalid. In other words, the objection is related to law enforcement practice, but not to the contradiction of the challenged normative legal acts to the Constitution. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 31 of the Entrepreneurial Code do not define the property regime and, moreover, do not regulate the deprivation of the property right out of court, i.e. do not affect the constitutional rights indicated by the subject of the appeal.

The subject of the appeal also challenged Article 32, paragraph 4 of the Entrepreneurial Code, which was not applied by the court, which does not meet the conditions for admissibility of consideration of the appeal established by subparagraph 1), paragraph 2, Article 45, paragraph 2 of the Constitutional Law "On the Constitutional Court".

In view of these circumstances, the Constitutional Court refused the applicant's request to verify the issues of practical nature, the examination of which falls within the competence of the court.