Expert: HQCJ should check public information on Supreme Court judges as part of their qualification assessment

Judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine must undergo a qualification assessment, which will check public information about them. This was stated by Olena Shcherban, head of the legal department of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, in a commentary to UNN.

Of course, we have the Supreme Court, which must also undergo (qualification assessment - ed.) - it is not fair when current judges of first and appellate instances are checked, and the Supreme Court, which itself has not been cleared, can now cancel decisions on these judges. This mutual responsibility must also be removed

According to her, during the qualification assessment of current judges, the High Qualification Commission of Judges checks all public information about them.

"When each such judge undergoes this qualification assessment, the PIC (Public Integrity Council - ed.) prepares its materials on them, collects all public information, the HQCJ independently collects all the facts that are found publicly - they are the subject of this consideration. If, of course, a judge does not meet the requirements for the position of a judge, he or she is recommended for dismissal by the High Council of Justice, which makes the final decision," said Shcherban, commenting on the information that appeared in the media about the possible bribery of the panel of Supreme Court judges who considered the case of the escape from custody of Oleksandr Shepelev, a former MP suspected of a series of contract killings and high treason.

She noted that this is not exactly a procedure for checking the integrity of judges, but it is part of the qualification assessment. "But of course, there is a story that... there are questions to those judges who passed this earlier - under the old HQCJ, there were questions about the quality, because many dishonest judges passed this qualification assessment," added Shcherban.

At the same time, she said, it is necessary to strengthen the process of selecting judges to minimize the entry of dishonest people into the judiciary. Shcherban added that the procedures for checking the integrity of judges can be improved and worked on for a long time. However, it is still impossible to predict 100% of the risks that a dishonest person will enter the system. "Of course, there are mechanisms and ways to check the integrity of judges to a high quality," Shcherban said.

According to her, this largely depends on the quality of the work of the High Qualification Commission of Judges and how it will check the integrity and previous activities of future judges, and analyze their property status.

Add

Kateryna Butko , head of the public council at the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption (NAPC), believesthat the Supreme Court needs to be reformed and cleared of dishonest judges, so that cases like Shepelev's will be considered transparently and efficiently. 

Lawyer and executive director of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union Oleksandr Pavlichenko told UNN that the High Council of Justice is tasked with forming an independent judicial system in Ukraine without political influence.

Volodymyr Vatras, chairman of the subcommittee on the organization and activities of the Bar and legal aid bodies of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Legal Policy, also stated that the Supreme Court should be cleared of judges who have compromised themselves.

Recall 

A panel of the Supreme Court changed Shepelev's sentence in the escape from custody case and tried to release him. Judges Vyacheslav Marynych, Volodymyr Korol and Alla Makarovets decided to close one of the episodes of the case, which concerned bribery, due to what they considered insufficient evidence. As a result, the property of the former MP will not be confiscated under this episode . Although, according to experts interviewed by UNN, the Supreme Court judges did not have the right to directly examine any evidence.

In addition, the judges counted the period of Shepelev's stay in the Russian pre-trial detention center as part of the sentence. He was detained in Russia following an extradition request from Ukraine. A year later, Russia refused to extradite the fugitive ex-MP to Ukraine, citing threats to its own national security. It turned outthat Shepelev was valuable to Russia because he was an FSB agent and a game player.

The Supreme Court panel also used the Savchenko law and counted Shepeleva's stay in the pre-trial detention center on charges in other cases as part of his sentence. 

The prosecutor appealed the actions of the Supreme Court judges to the HCJ.

According to the automatic distribution , the complaint in Shepelev's case will be considered by the first-ever HCJ member who fought at the front against Russia, Olena Kovbiy.