To answer these questions, the Venice Commission recalls that a restriction to the right to be elected and to sit as a mayor is acceptable if it is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim and is in conformity with the principle of proportionality.

- Concerning the first condition (prescribed by law), the Venice Commission considers that there may be doubts concerning the foreseeability of article 30.6 of the Code of Administrative Offences. To assess whether the requirement of foreseeability has been fulfilled, the question should also be raised whether established case-law enables the citizens to regulate their conduct: they must be able - if need be with appropriate advice - to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail.
- Concerning the legitimate aim, the Venice Commission considers that preventing conflicts of interest in the election process is in the interest of democracy and therefore based on objective and reasonable criteria.
- Concerning the proportionality of the measure, a balance has to be established between the aim of the protection of the democratic order and the right to stand for elections while considering the specific circumstances of the case. Restrictions are (in principle) acceptable in case of serious offences against rules that protect the integrity of the election process and outcome, and more generally the democratic system of government. It belongs to the Constitutional Court to assess whether an offence which led to a rather light administrative fine can nevertheless be considered as serious enough to justify the additional sanction of disqualification, and therefore to determine whether a fair balance has been struck between the legitimate aim pursued and the protection of the right to sit as an elected person. In this assessment the nature of the offence (an election-related conflict of interests) and the specific context in Ukraine should be taken into account.