The HCJ Makes Inconsistent and Unclear Decisions in Cases on Bringing Judges to Liability

It gives little reason to trust the HCJ and perceive disciplinary sanctions as based on inevitable punishment of judges who commit disciplinary violations that the disciplinary practice of the Council and its disciplinary chambers is inconsistent and often quite simply unclear.

One example is canceling the decision of the disciplinary chamber which brought judge Yuriev to disciplinary liability. On December 13, 2023, the HCJ disciplinary chamber consisting of members Plakhtii, Lukianov, Popikova, Bokova, and Kandziuba, ruled to bring judge of Mezhivskyi Raion Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Yuriev to disciplinary liability.

The disciplinary chamber found that the judge considered the case of bringing the driver to administrative liability under Article 130 of the Administrative Code (driving vehicles by persons under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other intoxication), and at the same time another case against the same person under Article 173 of the Administrative Code (petty hooliganism). The judge made a decision to combine the cases into one proceeding, which allowed him to further make a decision to impose a sanction in the form of community service for a period of 50 (fifty) hours.

If the judge had continued the consideration of these cases without combining them into a single proceeding, he would have been obliged to sanction the driver with mandatory deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of one year.

The disciplinary chamber came to the conclusion that the decision of judge Yuriev was unfounded: the judge did not provide adequate motivation as to why this driver's community service is sufficient punishment and why he should not be suspended from driving.

While considering judge Yuriev’s complaint against this decision of the disciplinary chamber, the High Council of Justice decided to cancel this decision, fully absolving the judge of any liability. The High Council of Justice only noted that it is not empowered by the law to establish or assess the circumstances of the case, and the disciplinary liability of judges should not apply to the content of their decisions. This decision was supported by all the HCJ members who participated in the meeting (Usyk, Bondarenko, Burlakov, Kvasha, Kovbii, Kotelevets, Kravchenko, Melnyk, Moroz, Salikhov, Sasevych).

In contrast, the HQCJ found judge Honcharenko unfit for office for involvement in the same “scheme” in which judge Yuriev also participated.

It should be noted that previously, the High Council of Justice brought judges to disciplinary liability numerous times for undue motivation of decisions in cases on administrative liability of drivers for DUI; therefore, such an inconsistent approach undermines the establishment of unified and clear standards of disciplinary liability of judges in case of similar violations in trials.