Old New Candidates for the Supreme Court. The analysis of CHESNO.Filter the court!

189 candidates who participated in the first contest to the Supreme Court, but did not get into it, will compete for the positions again. The High Qualifications Commission of Judges of Ukraine allowed these 189 candidates who submitted the documents for the competition.

CHESNO.Filter the court! investigated the reasons why these candidates did not pass the preliminary competition to the Supreme Court. Thus, 33 candidates received a negative opinion from the Public Council on Integrity at the last competition. 6 candidates were not admitted under the results of special verification. 72 did not pass the test on knowledge of law (scored less than the minimum acceptable score). 9 dropped out of the competition according to the interview results. 9 left the competition on the results of the plenary session The Supreme Council of Justice did not recommend. 1 candidate for the appointment. Among them: 119 judges, 20 lawyers, 22 scholars, 28 candidates with aggregate work experience.

For example, the judge of the Central District Court of the city of Mykolaiv, Volodymyr Aleinikov, as reported by the portal “Prestupnosti net”, in the case of a bribe charged with a deputy of the local council banned journalists from shooting during an open court hearing. The portal has posted a video that demonstrates the unethical behavior of a judge during a court session. The arguments of journalists that, according to the current legislation, they have the right to fix the process and do it in the public interest, the judge states that there is no such entity as “public”, and therefore there is no right of the public to record the trial as well. Also according to a judge, the deputy of the local council is not a public figure in the courtroom, because here he is accused and interest to him, as a public figure, is unjustified. The judge allowed statements that were dubious from the ethical point of view. Here is an example of one of his numerous unethical replicas in dialogue with a person who is present at an open trial:

“Judge: I have the right to beat someone. It does not mean that I have the right to beat you.

Person: Can I finish?

Judge: No. “

Sakhno Roman Ivanovich, the judge of the Highest Specialized Court of Ukraine, was a member of the panel of judges, which in the cassation instance confirmed the legality of the judgment of Pechersk District Court of Kyiv, which sentenced Tymoshenko Yulia Volodymyrivna up to 7 years imprisonment. Also, according to TSN journalists, Sakhno did not pay alimony for the maintenance of his minor child.

In the judge of the High Economic Court of Ukraine, Danylova Malvina Vladimirovna has adopted many dubious decisions too. In particular, in her case there are two decisions on scandalous construction near the Saint Sophia Cathedral, a decision to refuse to recognize the illegal transfer of 2 hectares of land in Kharkiv to the housing and construction cooperative “Barkhany” associated with the son of Gennadii Kernes, the mayor of Kharkiv.

Mykola Frantovskyi, the husband of the judge of the cassation court in the composition of the Supreme Court of the Frantovska Tatiana Ivanivna, is called “the forest king of Zhytomyr region” and associate his name with the cover of large illegal forest harvesters.

The main reasons for the conclusion of the Public Council of Integrity about the judge’s non-compliance – the adoption of doubtful decisions. In particular, Frantovska ordered a detention without satisfaction of the cassation complaint of a person to whom compulsory measures of a medical nature were applied in the form of hospitalization to a psychiatric hospital. However, in the future, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it recognized the violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and stated that the national authorities had not established in a compelling manner and with the necessary procedural guarantees against arbitrariness the existence and stability of a true mental disorder which nature or degree was such as to justify placing the applicant in a psychiatric hospital.

According to information from the website “Dostup do pravdy” in Rivne region, two companies have special permits for the use of amber mineral deposits: the State Enterprise “Burshtyn of Ukraine” and the “Soniachne remeslo Center” LLC, 75% of whose corporate rights belong to Symsi Halyna Vasylivna, wife of Judge of the Administrative Court in composition of the Supreme Court of Zaika Mykola Mykolayovych. In 2015, Judge Zaika was among the five richest judges of Ukraine according to the study of CHESNO movement. The total income of his family amounted to 4 350 810 UAH. According to the Public Council of Integrity, he also participated in the rehabilitation of the Maidan judges.

Alieieva Inna Vyacheslavivna, the judge of the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine, presided at the board, which made a decision to refuse to recognize the illegal transfer of 2 hectares of land in Kharkiv to the housing and communal association “Barkhany”, associated with the son of Genadii Kernes, the Mayor of Kharkiv. In 2013, Alieieva declared 1.5 million revenues, of which 1 million 300 thousand – 2 loans. In 2014, the judge declared more than 2 million UAH revenues. This time, the judge inscribed 1,918,800 UAH in the column “gifts, prizes, winnings”.

We recall that the High Qualifications Commission of Judges of Ukraine on August 2, 2018 announced a competition for the employment of 78 vacant positions of judges of cassation courts in the Supreme Court:

in the Cassation Administrative Court – 26 positions;

in the Cassation Economic Court – 16 positions;

in the Cassation Criminal Court – 13 positions;

in the Cassation Civil Court – 23 positions.

Submission of documents for participation in competitions from judges, lawyers and scientists with relevant experience lasted from August 8 to September 14, 2018. As of September 24, 2018, the High Qualifications Commission of Judges received 1001 applications with document packages, of which 659 were for participation in the second contest to the Supreme Court, and 342 to the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court.

Thus, in total, 567 candidates apply to the Supreme Court for 78 vacant positions. That is, on average, seven admitted candidates for one post.