The HCJ Delays Consideration of Disciplinary Complaints in High-Profile and Priority Cases

the “new” High Council of Justice fails to provide rapid consideration of cases that have significant public interest and require the fastest possible resolution to cleanse the judiciary of unscrupulous judges. It continues to ignore the problems of Kyiv District Administrative Court and started considering only several disciplinary cases against individual judges.

One of the challenges and tasks that the new composition of the HCJ was supposed to handle was rapid resolution of disciplinary cases related to high-profile cases of potential violations of the law by judges, cases of great public interest etc.

Such prioritization is not just a suggestion of civil society. In its 2023 Ukraine report, the European Commission noted that resuming the consideration of disciplinary cases against judges in high-profile incidents and cases where the statute of limitations is about to expire is one of its recommendations for 2024 to give Ukraine positive assessment on its path to acquire full membership in the EU. In other words, our accession to the European Union largely depends on whether the HCJ will consider priority cases.

The practice, however, turned out very different. We singled out the following most illustrative examples of the High Council of Justice delaying the consideration of cases that are evidently priority cases, pointing out the HCJ members “responsible” for them:

The HCJ Decided Not to Mention the Existence of “KDAC Cases”
Read more

Responsible: all HCJ members who report in cases regarding KDAC judges.

An obviously negative trend that raises significant questions about the HCJ is the pace at which the Council considers disciplinary cases against head of KDAC Pavlo Vovk and his “friends.”

First, since the resumption of its disciplinary functions, the HCJ managed to issue only several decisions on launching disciplinary cases regarding judges Patratii, Mazur, as well as Vovk and Ablov. (1, 2, 3) — and this is just regarding several incidents related to KDAC judges avoiding qualification assessment and attempts to influence and pressure HQCJ members, even though there are dozens of complaints against these judges. Currently, these are not even final decisions on bringing these judges to disciplinary liability, which may show a regrettable continuation of the negative trend of the Council’s previous composition, when there was no willingness to consider these judges’ actions in disciplinary terms in any form.The group of cases regarding KDAC judges should inevitably include the story on the consideration of KDAC judge Ablov’s application for honorable retirement. Back then, the HCJ refused to stop the review of this application multiple times, delaying the resolution of this issue. Only at the end of 2023, thanks to the public outcry and pressure, the Council ruled to stop the review of Ablov’s application for honorable retirement.

HCJ Members Tried to Stop the Proceeding on Former Head of the Supreme Court Kniaziev Until the Conclusion of the Criminal Case, and Afterward, They Delay the Case Violating All Reasonable Deadlines
Read more

Responsible: S. Burlakov

We previously reported that the HCJ opened a disciplinary case based on the complaint by DEJURE Foundation regarding former head of the Supreme Court Vsevolod Kniaziev being caught on a potential bribe of USD 2.7 million.

Despite the major public outcry, the reporting HCJ member on this disciplinary case, S. Burlakov, initiated the suspension of this case until the completion of the criminal proceedings concerning Kniaziev in relation to these events. Thanks to public pressure, most members of the Disciplinary Chamber did not support this initiative, so the case was considered anyway.

Although this time, the High Council of Justice failed to delay the consideration of this case or “bury” it, the very attempt to do it is an extremely alarming signal that the HCJ may avoid consideration of difficult and “inconvenient” disciplinary cases regarding gross violations of the law by judges.

Another confirmation is that at the meeting on May 15, 2024, reporting HCJ member Burlakov also pointed out that this case could not be considered because the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office had not sent materials of the criminal proceeding regarding Kniaziev. Such explanations appear an attempt by Burlakov to make the consideration of a disciplinary case dependent on actions of other agencies, primarily SAPO and the court that tries the criminal proceeding. All information required for the disciplinary case could be obtained from relevant witnesses or by requesting materials through the court. In this regard, it remains unclear why the reporting member of the HCJ did not take proper and sufficient measures to obtain these materials, considering that the disciplinary case was opened as early as December 20, 2023.

Attempt to Delay the Consideration of a Disciplinary Case against O. Tandyr, Who Ran Over a National Guard Servant
Read more

Responsible: V. Salikhov

Another scandalous decision of the HCJ was in the case on disciplinary liability of Makariv Raion Court judge O. Tandyr, where the Disciplinary Chamber ruled to stop the consideration of the case on January 31, 2024.

On May 26, 2023, a traffic accident occurred near Kyiv with the involvement of O. Tandyr, who was allegedly driving while intoxicated and hit a National Guard soldier who was standing at a roadblock.

On January 10, 2024, the HCJ opened a disciplinary case; however, it stopped the consideration as soon as on January 31, citing the fact that reporting HCJ member Salikhov had not had a chance to request the materials of the criminal proceeding regarding O. Tandyr before going on vacation, which became a formal reason to suspend the consideration of the case.

However, it turned out very soon that Kyiv Municipal Prosecutor’s Office sent the allegedly “missing” materials to the HCJ back on January 25, 2024, and the receipt was registered in the Council on January 30, 2024.

On February 14, the HCJ resumed the consideration of this case. In spite of this, the situation with suspending the consideration of this case appears controversial and may, to a certain degree, show that the HCJ is reluctant to consider high-profile disciplinary cases.

Another example is the behavior of the aforementioned HCJ member Salikhov, who seems to be in no hurry to handle the opening of a disciplinary case in relation with the high-profile incident with four judges of Kyiv Appellate Court getting caught while receiving undue benefit.

Disciplinary Cases Regarding Collaborators and Traitors in the Judiciary
Read more

Responsible: Burlakov, Plakhtii, Bokova, and other reporting HCJ members in these cases.

One of the new challenges for Ukraine’s judicial system overall since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion into Ukraine since 2022 is the increased collaboration of some representatives of the judiciary with the occupiers.

Even though such cases clearly undermine the reputation of the judiciary, and collaboration of judges with the occupiers is usually not too challenging to prove, the High Council of Justice tends to be slow with consideration of such disciplinary cases.
‍
Both Automaidan and DEJURE experts already reported on some cases when collaborators among judges did not face any liability, even in the form of dismissal from the position of a judge.

The most vivid examples can be as follows:

●

the complaint by a DEJURE Foundation lawyer regarding judge of North Appellate Economic Court Kuksov, who, according to the Security Service of Ukraine, expected Ukraine’s takeover by Russia while staying in Kyiv. Reporting HCJ member Burlakov is not ensuring timely consideration of this case as of now;

●

HCJ member Plakhtii has been responsible since November 23, 2023, for the disciplinary case against judge of Yakykivskyi Raion Court of Zaporizhzhia Oblast Fedorets, who is accused of collaborationism. The judge was suspended by the HCJ due to these episodes, but the disciplinary case against her is not being considered;

●

On November 23, 2023, HCJ member Bokova received the complaint via automatic allocation regarding judge of Starobilskyi Raion Court of Luhansk Oblast Kudriavtsev, who, according to investigation, started cooperating with representatives of the so-called “LPR” in March 2022, promising to work as a judge in the court they create on the occupied territory. There has been no progress since.

Such actions and inaction by HCJ members are clearly contrary to the public demand for the formation of the judicial corps from patriotic people, loyal to their country.

AriseHealth logoOE logoToogether logoToogether logo
Дослідження виконано за фінансової підтримки Міністерства закордонних справ Німеччини. Погляди та позиції, викладені у даному дослідженні, не обов'язково відображують позицію Міністерства закордонних справ Німеччини.