This is a one-way game. The lawyer spoke about the conflict between the HCJ and the Supreme Court

Legislative changes are needed so that there is a clear list of grounds for reviewing decisions of the High Council of Justice by members of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, because now it is a one-way game. This opinion was expressed in an exclusive commentary to UNN by Oleksiy Lyaskovets, a lawyer who is currently at the front.

Comment on the conflict that has developed between the SC and the HCJ, when the HCJ considers complaints against judges, and the Grand Chamber of the SC can overturn the conclusions of the HCJ and return the complaint for reconsideration, and so on in a circle. Is this the reason why no judge of the Supreme Court has been brought to justice so far, or are they all saints? How can this conflict be resolved?

"I just don't understand one thing - the head of the Supreme Court is an ex officio member of the HCJ. If he participates and votes for a judge to commit a violation for which he or she should be dismissed on certain grounds, why then the Grand Chamber (of the Supreme Court - ed.), of which he or she is a member, makes a decision and says, 'Let's reconsider. What good can come of this? Nothing good. That's why the question is that everyone should do their job well, for the benefit of the state and society, and not that there are judges who are odious and cannot be dismissed a priori," said Lyaskovets.

According to him, it is a "one-way game."

"I understand that every decision has the right to appeal, but as the Grand Chamber has shown, not every decision can be appealed, and they have written this more than once in their decisions," Lyaskovets said.

According to him, there should be an understanding that if you have elected this body, it means you trust it, and if the Chief Justice is an ex officio member of this body, this decision should take precedence.

"Yes, it is necessary to prescribe clear markers in the legislation: on what grounds, for example, a violation of procedures, some principles, some stage can be appealed. Then yes. But there should be a clear and exhaustive list of grounds for appealing. It's not like this: the HCJ decided that the judge was bad, and the Grand Chamber decided that he was not bad. But who are the members of the Grand Chamber? Judges of civil, administrative, and criminal jurisdiction. That is, we understand who forms it. That's why we need to make some comments and introduce specific criteria for appeals," said Lyaskovets.

According to him, the current situation looks like "one hand washes the other."

"Judges - they agree with each other, and taking into account the situation that happened the last time with the head of the Supreme Court (Knyazev - ed.) ... we understand how issues are resolved and how decisions are made. We are not saying that all judges are like this, but the question is that the head of such a body has committed such a misdemeanor - it is a crime, and how it will play in the future in terms of the attitude of society itself to the judiciary is a big question," Lyaskovets said.

According to him, the High Council of Justice should make final decisions on the disciplinary liability of judges.

"Regarding the resolution of the issue, in my opinion, if we take into account that the ECHR in the case of Vovk v. Ukraine said that the HCJ - today the HCJ is a quasi-court, and most members of the Council of Justice are judges elected by judges, I believe that they have the right to make decisions and this decision should be final. And judges should think about whom to elect to this body and whom to delegate to this body in order to ensure transparency and the rule of law, so that the innocent are not prosecuted, and the guilty are prosecuted and deprived of the status of judge," noted Lyaskovets.

At the same time, the lawyer believes that the legislation on the retirement age of judges needs to be changed. Mr. Lyaskovets noted that there are currently many cases when fairly young judges with 20 years of service retire to avoid dismissal, among other things. At the same time, they receive a pension of 90% of their judicial remuneration, putting a burden on the budget, although they could still work.

"I would generally amend the legislation to allow judges to work until the age of 60," Lyaskovets said.

Earlier, 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, said in a commentary to UNN that the Supreme Court should be cleared of judges who have compromised themselves. However, the reform should be approached in a balanced manner, and the relevant parliamentary committee is working on it.