Failures of the HCJ-7

A clear failure of the High Council of Justice is its decisions in cases where, despite clear violations of the law, judges do not bear any responsibility at all, or it arises only in case of broad media coverage and public pressure.
‍
In the eyes of an outside observer, cases of unjustified avoidance of responsibility by judges can reasonably raise the question whether the High Council of Justice is really able to ensure inevitability of punishment and equality of all before law in respect of judges.

The following cases may serve as more specific examples:

The HCJ Refused to Bring Judge Kovhanych to Disciplinary Liability After He Attempted to Flee from the Police While Being Reported for an Administrative Violation

Responsible: Salikhov, Burlakov
‍
According to Slidstvo.Info, in March 2023 judge Kovhanych was stopped by the patrol police for speeding. The judge immediately informed them of his status of a judge and started instructing the police how they should hold their TruCams correctly. When they started drawing up a report on an administrative violation, Kovhanych started threatening them with civil lawsuits and recovering moral damages from them personally.

After a conversation where the judge was threatening the police, Kovhanych ignored the police’s instructions that he had to stay in place and drove off, running over a police officer’s foot.

The patrol officers started pursuing Kovhanych’s vehicle and eventually stopped him. Due to his failure to comply with police instructions, the judge was informed that he was being detained. Kovhanych voluntarily exited the vehicle and held out his hands to be handcuffed. Even though Kovhanych disagreed that he was speeding, he insisted on being taken to the police station. According ot the judge, it would be easier to prove the illegality of police officers’ actions there.

While this case was considered by the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice, reporting member Maselko proposed to apply the sanction in the form of a dismissal. However, most members of the Disciplinary Chamber (Salikhov, Burlakov) voted against bringing the judge to disciplinary liability at all. Only HCJ member Kovbii put forward a dissenting vote.

This decision is yet another example of a cover-up for a judge who demonstrates clearly unscrupulous behavior and tries to use his status to pressure the police, and then tried to leave the place of the incident altogether, expecting that the patrol officers would not want to get in trouble by pursuing a judge.

By considering this case, the High Council of Justice had the opportunity to send an important signal to society and judges that judges are members of society, equal before the law, and use judicial guarantees and their status only to exercise the right of everyone to access justice, and not for their own benefit. Sadly, this is not what happened.

The HCJ Disciplinary Chamber Turned a Blind Eye to Judge Monych Driving While Intoxicated

Responsible: Salikhov (reporting), Burlakov, Melnyk

In this disciplinary case, judge Monych of the Mukachevo City District Court of Zakarpattia Oblast, as noted in the police report, was driving a vehicle with signs of alcohol intoxication (the smell of alcohol from the mouth, unsteady gait), but he refused to be examined for intoxication in the presence of two witnesses.

Afterward, the Svaliava Raion Court of Zakarpattia Oblast closed the case based on the absence of an administrative offense, while not ensuring participation and interrogation of certain witnesses in the case, including the police officers themselves. The court relied on the explanation provided by Monych himself and his witness, who claimed that Monych was not driving but rather riding the vehicle as a passenger. Even the Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ questioned the accuracy of this testimony but still accepted it and ruled not to bring the judge to liability (Burlakov and Melnyk voted in favor of this, Kovbii voted against this).

Currently, the Disciplinary Chamber’s decision has been appealed to the full Council, which announced a break in the case to summon witnesses.

Certain Practices of the HCJ Demonstrate Clear Problems with Appealing Its Decisions on Not Bringing Judges to Liability

We have already noted that the provision under which decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber not to hold a judge accountable can only be appealed by the judge himself or herself is quite problematic — however, the complainant can appeal it only if the chamber itself grants such permission.
‍
Yet, similar problems can arise in certain other situations. For instance, the High Council of Justice refused to extend the deadline to appeal the decision on refusing to bring Maidan judge Kytsiuk to justice — he was the one who convicted Automaidan activists for going to Mezhyhiria.

Judge Kytsiuk of Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv is one of the most infamous Maidan judges who convicted Automaidan activists for going to Mezhyhiria and still managed to avoid dismissal through disciplinary liability.

In 2017, the “old” HCJ refused to bring him to disciplinary liability despite countless evidence of Kytsiuk knowingly and grossly violating the law while considering the activists’ cases.

The rebooted HCJ had an opportunity to fix this injustice in December 2023, when the complainant in this case asked for an extension of the deadline to appeal the HCJ’s decision issued in 2017. Despite this, in its decision of December 12, 2023, the High Council of Justice turned down the motion to extend the deadline, thus effectively fully legitimizing the decision of the previous HCJ to absolve Kytsiuk of any liability for persecuting Automaidan activists.

However, Kytsiuk is still subject to a qualification assessment, so we do hope he will be held liable for the violations committed.

The HCJ Almost Refused to Dismiss Judge Kozina, Who Organized a “Scheme” for Unfounded Granting of Ukrainian Citizenship

Responsible: Salikhov, Burlakov
‍
An interesting situation occurred with judge Kozina of Rzhyshchiv City Court of Kyiv Oblast, who could avoid the well-deserved consequences in the form of dismissal. Kozina was practicing a “scheme” with making unfounded decisions to grant the Ukrainian citizenship to individuals. However, the disciplinary complaint originally pertained to only some of these decisions, and the disciplinary chamber did not have enough votes at first to start a disciplinary case against Kozina concerning the decisions that were not covered by the complaint (Salikhov and Burlakov voted against opening the case, Melnyk and Kovbii voted in favor). Only after these events were covered in the media did the chamber reconsider. Notably, if the Disciplinary Chamber had not started an additional disciplinary case on its own initiative regarding facts that were not directly included in the disciplinary complaint, judge Kozina could have probably avoided dismissal.

The HCJ Tolerates Judges’ Unscrupulous Behavior and Fails to Take Adequate Measures to Bring them to Liability

The HCJ Refused to Bring Judge Kovhanych to Disciplinary Liability After He Attempted to Flee from the Police While Being Reported for an Administrative Violation

The HCJ Disciplinary Chamber Turned a Blind Eye to Judge Monych Driving While Intoxicated

Certain Practices of the HCJ Demonstrate Clear Problems with Appealing Its Decisions on Not Bringing Judges to Liability

The HCJ Almost Refused to Dismiss Judge Kozina, Who Organized a “Scheme” for Unfounded Granting of Ukrainian Citizenship