Is the Civil Code of Ukraine the «father of laws»?

The author argues that the notion that the Civil Code of Ukraine (CC) has superior force over other statutes is inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine. Moreover, such an understanding yields unreasonable outcomes that contradict the purpose of statutory interpretation. Therefore, the notion that the CC has the status of a “father of laws,” endowed with higher legal force than other statutes, should be rejected. Conflicts (competition) between the norms of the CC and the norms of other statutes should be resolved in the same manner as conflicts between the norms of non-codified statutes. Resolving normative conflicts is a form of statutory interpretation. Various interpretive methods may be applied, including the maxims lex posterior derogat legi priori and lex specialis derogat legi generali; however, there is no abstract hierarchy between these rules. Moreover, these rules (as well as any other interpretive rules) are not subject to unconditional application in all cases. It is impossible to establish in advance any uniform, mandatory methods for resolving conflicts of statutory provisions. Principles of reasonableness and fairness should carry greater weight than formal conflict-of-laws rules. The Supreme Court’s case law confirms this. Understanding the CC as having “priority” over other laws has, among other things, led to the emergence of so-called de-codification rules. These rules require that any draft law regulating civil relations in a manner different from that of the CC be accompanied by a separate draft law amending the CC. This harms the CC itself by prompting constant amendments in response to the adoption of noncodified statutes, thereby undermining its stability. Moreover, the very goal of weakening de-codification processes appears at least questionable, since de-codification is a response to social and economic changes, and as a result, a significant body of relations is regulated outside the CC. Including in the CC fragmentary (supposedly most important) provisions regulating the same relations that are governed by other (specialized) laws creates an artificial conflict of norms. Examples include inserting into the CC individual provisions on limited liability companies, joint-stock companies, and cooperatives. This approach is a remnant of the Soviet tradition, which should be abandoned.