The HCJ has enough powers to bring Supreme Court judges to disciplinary responsibility, only political will is lacking - lawyer

The High Council of Justice has enough powers to discipline judges, including those of the Supreme Court, but lacks political will. This opinion was expressed by lawyer Denys Tsypin in an exclusive commentary to UNN.

Details

Answering a question about whether the HCJ has enough powers to prosecute judges who have openly violated the law, Tsypin said:

Enough, more than enough. One thing is missing, they are fully equipped with everything except political will and economic influence.

Commenting on the conflict that has arisen because the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturns the decision of the High Council of Justice and sends complaints against judges for reconsideration,  the lawyer noted that this issue has two components. On the one hand, he said, every person has the right to a fair trial and this opportunity cannot be taken away from them, as this would be a violation of the Constitution and all the rules and mechanisms of the rule of law.

"However, many judges of the Supreme Court are in fact related to the HCJ in one way or another, are members of the HCJ, etc. I believe that such decisions and going around in circles are not due to the fact that the court and the HCJ have different points of view on a particular decision or any differences in opinion. There is a political or economic order not to dismiss a judge. But the mechanism must work. If a judge is not dismissed from office and the HCJ does not review his or her documents, does not bring him or her to disciplinary responsibility, and does not make decisions regarding him or her, then we are talking about obvious corruption: there are favorites who cannot be touched. And it can't be like that," Tsypin said.

The lawyer believes that such a simple scheme as running in circles exists to allow judges to avoid disciplinary responsibility. "The Supreme Court cannot make a final decision, the HCJ corrects it, and so on in a circle," he said.

Recall.

Earlier, Oleksiy Lyaskovets, a lawyer who is currently at the front, statedthat legislative changes are needed to provide a clear list of grounds for reviewing decisions of the High Council of Justice by members of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, as it is currently a one-way game. 

Volodymyr Vatras, chairman of the subcommittee on the organization and activities of the Bar, legal aid bodies of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Legal Policy, in a commentary to UNN said that the Supreme Court should be cleared of judges who have compromised themselves. A panel of the Supreme Court changed Shepelev's sentence in the case of escape from custody 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. Therefore, the former MP's property will not be confiscated. 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 out that Shepelev was valuable to Russia because he was a FSB agent and agame player. The Supreme Court panel also used the Savchenko Law and counted Shepelev's time in a 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.