Purification of the Courts: Who Has the HCJ Dismissed After Resuming the Review of Disciplinary Complaints?

Bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility is a crucial mechanisms for ensuring the integrity of the judiciary. In autumn 2023, after more than a two-year break, the Verkhovna Rada reinstated the High Council of Justice’s (HCJ) authority to consider disciplinary cases against judges.

The current composition of the HCJ was established between 2022 and 2024 following a shift in the approach to selecting its members: all candidates are vetted by the Ethics Council, which consists of six members, three of whom are Ukrainian judges and three are international experts who have a casting vote in case of a tie. These changes are integral to the judicial reform.

Any person has the right to file a disciplinary complaint. Citizens may exercise this right personally or through an advocate, legal entities - through an advocate, public authorities and local self-government bodies - through their managers or representatives.

According to the HCJ press service, since 1 November 2023, when the HCJ resumed the automatic distribution of accumulated complaints among its members, the Council distributed 20,800 complaints by 31 October 2024. Of these, 14,400 complaints were carried over from the previous HCJ, having been received from 5 August 2021 till 31 December 2023, while 6,796 complaints were received during the first ten months of 2024.

The new HCJ considered 10,466 complaints and brought 132 judges to disciplinary responsibility. Proceedings against 27 of them resulted in dismissal. A brief analysis of refusals to open disciplinary cases against judges (or refusals to bring a judge to justice) shows that most complaints against judges are due to the complainant’s disagreement with a court decision. While disciplinary liability of a judge serves a mechanism to address dishonest or unethical behaviour, whether in or outside the courtroom, as well as neglect of their judicial duties.

Thus, the HCJ dismisses judges for treason, corruption, drunken driving, fleeing abroad, etc.

Traitors Dismissed

For example, Volodymyr Kupin, a judge of the Balakliia District Court of Kharkiv Region, Nataliia Sharko, a judge of the Genichesk District Court of Kherson Region, and Iryna Ukhaniova, the Head of the Vovchansk District Court of Kharkiv Region, are suspected of collaborating with the Russians.

Ms Sharko, in particular, continued working after the occupation in the so-called ‘Genichesk District Court of Kherson Region’ and later assumed the role of ‘First Deputy Head of the Genichesk Military and Civil Administration of Kherson Region’. According to law enforcement agencies, Ms Ukhaniova persuaded judges to collaborate with the occupation authorities, and encouraged court staff to obtain Russian passports.

Another ‘position’ in the occupation authorities was offered to Volodymyr Kupin, the Head of the Balakliia District Court of Kharkiv Region. According to the HCJ’s decision on his dismissal, after the occupation, he relocated from Balakliia to Kupiansk and became the ‘acting deputy head of the department - head of the legal support department of the temporary civil administration of Kharkiv region’.

The only person detained in government-controlled territory of Ukraine and personally charged with treason was Larysa Bohomolova, a judge of the Berdiansk City District Court of Zaporizhzhia Region. After relocating to government-controlled territory, she was seconded to the Poltava District Court of Poltava Region, where she was immediately appointed head by a decision of the judges’ meeting.

On 10 May 2023, the Security Service of Ukraine released audio recordings of conversations between Ms Bohomolova and a representative of the Russian FSB, which revealed that she had ‘leaked’ the information to the enemy about the movement of three Azov fighters from Mariupol to the Mangush area, and had prepared a list of Berdiansk judges as ‘ardent opponents of all this’.

The details of her case are closed. Her explanations were neither broadcast during the HCJ meeting nor included in the decisions. However, the HCJ’s decision to dismiss her states that the disciplinary chamber was critical of the explanations provided by Bohomolova, as after leaving for the government-controlled territory, she did not report to the relevant law enforcement agencies and the HCJ about the alleged recruitment by the Russian FSB, interference in her activities, influence or other illegal actions.

Some of the dismissed judges remained in the occupied territories or subsequently moved to Russia, but did not apply for resignation and have either ceased communication or lost contact entirely.

For example, Kyrylo Soloviov, a judge of the Economic Court of Kherson Region, initially justified his stay in the occupied territory as a threat to his life if he attempted to leave, but even after the de-occupation of the region and his secondment to the Economic Court of Odesa Region, he failed to assume his duties. Therefore, the HCJ decided that in this way he refused to administer justice in the name of Ukraine, thereby undermining the authority of the judiciary.

Vitalii Koliadov, a judge of the Starobilsk District Court of Luhansk Region, claimed that he had attempted to leave Luhansk region five times ‘in the required direction’. All attempts were unsuccessful because active hostilities were ongoing on the contact line, posing a direct threat to his life and health. Subsequently, he ceased communication. At the same time, according to the State Border Guard Service, from 2018 to 2020, he visited the occupied territory of Luhansk region 11 times, staying there for a total of 132 days, and therefore probably has strong social ties there.

Judge Serhii Varniak of the Kherson District Administrative Court was seconded to the Odesa District Administrative Court after the occupation of the region, but never took up his duties there. He explained that he could not take his sick mother out of the occupied territory. However, it was later revealed that his mother had already passed away by the time of the decision to dismiss him, he had a taxpayer identification number as a Russian citizen, and  had filed a lawsuit in Crimea seeking a recalculation of his pension under Russian law, based on his experience as a Ukrainian judge.

Corrupt Judges and ‘Maidan Judges’ Leave

Another group of dismissed judges comprises those suspected or accused of corruption offences. This includes Vsevolod Kniazev, a judge and former Head of the Supreme Court, Viacheslav Dziubin, a judge of the Kyiv Court of Appeal (three other judges of this court - Yurii Slyva, Viktor Hlynianyi, and Ihor Palenyk - are awaiting consideration of their disciplinary cases); Volodymyr Honchar, a judge of the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal, Volodymyr Serdynskyi, a judge of the Brovary City District Court of Kyiv Region, and Serhii Galionkin, the Head of the Poltava Court of Appeal.

According to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, in particular, Galionkin gathered advocates and judges of Poltava to coordinate with them the resolution of cases.

During the investigation of the corruption crime against Serdynskyi, it was revealed that in March 2023, he was on a business trip to Vienna for 18 days, allegedly to participate in a conference on assistance to displaced persons, families with children and orphans from Ukraine. However, during this time, he travelled with his common-law wife on a cruise ship to the island of Martinique.

At the end of May 2023, a judge Oleksii Tandyr of the Makariv District Court of Kyiv Region was returning home to the capital from work at around midnight, when he ran over National Guard officer Vadym Bondarenko, who was installing fencing blocks and a road sign at a checkpoint as the curfew was starting. The judge was found to have exceeded the speed limit and also refused to take a breathalyser test. The HCJ confirmed that he had committed a significant disciplinary offence and dismissed him.

The HCJ dismissed Alla Demydovska, a judge of Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv, who was dismissed by the Verkhovna Rada in January 2016 but was reinstated due to procedural violations during the parliamentary consideration of her case.

During the Revolution of Dignity, the judge arrested activist Vladyslav Tsilytskyi on charges of rioting and disobedience to police. Despite he was severely beaten during the hearing, Tsilytskyi was brought to court directly from an ambulance. He was not provided with medical care.

Ms Demydovska and her advocate referred to the fact that more than ten years had passed since the disciplinary offence was committed, while disciplinary action against a judge may only be applied within three years of the date of the offence. Furthermore, they claimed that her dismissal would once again violate the principle of the prohibition of double jeopardy for the same act.

Instead, the HCJ noted in its decision that by considering this issue it was not attempting to hold the judge accountable for the second time, but was resuming the procedure for deciding on her dismissal based on the decision of the High Council of Justice of 3 December 2015. Eventually, the HCJ dismissed the judge in accordance with paragraph 3 of Part 6 of Article 126 of the Constitution of Ukraine (commission of a disciplinary offence).

The HCJ also dismissed Olena Volkova, a judge of the Yuzhnoukrainsk City Court of Mykolaiv Region, who, according to the prosecutor's office, returned indictments to the prosecution in eight court cases without substantiation, allowed two cases to be delayed, violated the rules of judicial ethics during the consideration of four criminal proceedings by allowing incorrect statements against the public prosecutor, etc.

Svitlana Kozina, a judge of the Rzhyshchiv City Court of Kyiv Region, was complained about by the executive committee of the Rzhyshchiv City Council of Kyiv Region, and later the Second Disciplinary Chamber found numerous violations committed by her in 38 of her decisions.

When considering the complaint, the HCJ concluded that the judge had repeatedly established the facts of people’s birth on the territory of Ukraine on the basis of false documents or their absence. The Council believes that the judge was aware that her court decisions would be used to obtain citizenship status, and therefore found a gross disciplinary violation and dismissed her.

Overall, over the course of the year, the HCJ brought 132 judges to disciplinary responsibility, dismissing 27 of them. Certainly, to stabilise the situation with disciplinary complaints that have accumulated in recent years, the HCJ will need to improve not only the quality of its reviews, but also their speed.

 

Read this article in Ukrainian and russian.