The HCJ Applies Clearly Insufficient Disciplinary Sanctions for Grave Violations of the Law by Judges

The HCJ tolerates systematic similar violations by judges by applying insufficient disciplinary sanctions, which do not motivate judges to refrain from violating the laws which resulted in liability for other judges.

Another problematic issue in consideration of disciplinary cases by the HCJ is applying evidently insufficient disciplinary sanctions to judges when they commit disciplinary violations for which other judges were sanctioned by the HCJ multiple times.
‍
When disciplinary sanctions are insufficient, this does not serve as a deterrent and may even encourage judges to commit disciplinary violations (including to receive undue benefits), counting on the fact that sanctions, if any, will not be severe.

We identified several cases when the “new” HCJ applied inadequately low disciplinary sanctions to judges:

The HCJ Applied the Least Severe Sanction to Judge Ptashynskyi Who Helps Drunk Drivers Avoid Liability En Masse
Read more

Responsible: Bokova, Bondarenko, Burlakov, Kvasha, Kovbii, Kotelevets, Popikova, Salikhov, Sasevych.

The first such example is the HCJ decision of January 16, 2024: judge Ptashynskyi of Sambirskyi City District Court of Lviv Oblast delayed the consideration of over 10 cases on administrative violations, which helped the perpetrators avoid liability.

The disciplinary chamber sanctioned judge Ptashynskyi with a reprimand with deprivation of bonuses for one month. However, reviewing this decision, the entire composition of the HCJ reduced this sanction to a “warning” — that is, the least severe sanction possible under the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges.”

Notably, the HCJ did not take into account that cases when judges help perpetrators avoid administrative liability through various “schemes” (delaying to exceed the statute of limitations etc.) is one of the most numerous categories of cases where judges are brought to disciplinary liability. That is, judges continue to commit disciplinary violations while understanding that they can be potentially brought to liability in view of the previous HCJ practice.

The HCJ Forgave Judge Prytula’s Unethical Behavior at a Court Hearing
Read more

Responsible: Salikhov, Burlakov, Melnyk, Kovbii

Another similar example is when the HCJ issued a warning on April 3, 2024, to judge Prytula of Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv. The judge first tried a civil case for three and a half years, and then started an unprovoked scandal in the court hearing, screaming and showing disrespect to the plaintiff, which may have been a sign that the judge wanted to create grounds for recusal, which she later granted to herself. Notably, it took the judge over a year to recuse herself. Despite such violations by the judge, the HCJ only saw a violation in the judge sending her decision to the register past the deadline, while turning a blind eye to truly gross violations, such as the unethical behavior and violating the rules of recusal. Thus, the HCJ found that a proportionate and adequate sanction for the judge would be a warning.

The HCJ Tolerates Corruption Practices in the Disciplinary Case of the Head of Poltava Appellate Court Halionkin
Read more

Responsible: Sasevych (reporting), Plaktii, Kotelevets
‍
Another example when the HCJ applied a clearly inadequate disciplinary sanction was the disciplinary case against the head of Poltava Appellate Court judge Halionkin, who was brought to disciplinary liability by the HCJ. The NABU recorded the judge’s conversation with other judges, where they discussed the ways to influence the decisions of a judge who was visiting from another court.

Despite the high profile of this case and the evidently unethical behavior of judge Halionkin, the disciplinary chamber only applied a severe reprimand with the deprivation of bonuses for three months (“yes” — Plaktii, Kotelevets, “no” — Kandziuba, Lukianov). It should also be noted that two members of the HCJ on the disciplinary chamber supported Halionkin’s dismissal, but this was not enough for a decision.

As a result, for trying to influence another judge, the head of the appellate court only suffered minor financial losses. This sanction is clearly inadequate, since it creates an impression that attempting to influence another judge is not a very significant violation, which will only further encourage unscrupulous judges, including ones in administrative positions, to pressure their colleagues.

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.