On July 12, 2016 the Kyiv Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal claim by the Kyiv City Employment Center and upheld the first instance decision to reverse the unlawful order on cancellation of Savik Shuster’s work permit. Attorneys of Savik Shuster Yaroslav Romanchuk and Yevgen Petrenko proved in court that the decision to cancel the work permit was based on inaccurate and misleading information.
Earlier, on June 13, 2016 the Kyiv City District Administrative Court considered the claim filed by the attorneys of International Legal Center EUCON on recognition as unlawful and reversal of the decision by the Kyiv City Employment Center on cancellation of Savik Shuster’s work permit.
During the court hearing, the attorneys of Savik Shuster Yaroslav Romanchuk and Yengen Petrenko proved the lack of substantiation in the Kyiv City Employment Center decision.
It is to remind that on April 25, 2016 the Kyiv City Employment Center cancelled the permission of Savik Shuster to work in Ukraine.
Due to the emerged resonance caused by the case, on April 28, 2016 the central office of the State Employment Service suspended the resolution of the Kyiv City Employment Center “to clarify the circumstances”.
Video comment after the first hearing at the Kyiv City District Administrative Court on June 1, 2016:
Interview for ЦЕНЗОР.НЕТ
This decision on cancellation of the work permit is null and void, because when submitting documents for extension of the work permit, which was issued on 31.03.2016, the studio attached the certificate issued by The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine proving that there were no criminal proceedings in which Savik Shucter was identified as a suspect and had no record of convictions.
The criminal proceeding which is currently being conducted by the investigation department of the State Fiscal Service of Ukraine was initiated regarding the fact, and the procedural status of Savik Shuster is identified as a witness.
We can state that the decision is based on false information and must be canceled.
The financial loan agreement was signed in 2008 between the resident of Cyprus and Savik Shuster, citizen of Canada.
This Agreement was not registered at the National Bank of Ukraine.
This Agreement is still valid and was not terminated, so the statute of limitations cannot be applied. Debt forgiveness did not take place as well.
The purpose of the loan was buying a house in Italy.
Relationship between the two entities took place outside the territory of Ukraine.
The money to purchase a house was sent to Savik’s bank account in Italy, never in Ukraine.
The tax audit on this issue was not carried out.
Tax liabilities on individual income tax were not accrued as the object of taxation has never occurred.
The criminal proceeding was initiated after the application of the National Deputy of Ukraine.
Savik Shuster’s procedural status in the criminal proceeding is identified as a witness, not a suspect.
Bringing a person to criminal liability as a stage persecution begins with the accusation of a crime.
Today, the relationship between the resident of Cyprus and Savik Shuster, citizen of Canada, has no connection with Ukraine”.
Savik Shuster
Yaroslav Romanchuk