We have drawn attention to the property and procedural aspects related to the judge of the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv, Yevhen Khaynatsky. His family's declaration includes land plots, apartments, and luxury cars, while a number of the judge's decisions - including the dismissal of complaints about prosecutors' inaction - raise questions about transparency and impartiality in high-profile cases.
Analyzing public declarations and judicial practice, one can find several potentially ambiguous moments in the activities of Yevhen Khaynatsky, a judge of the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv.
According to the declaration for 2024, the judge's family owns significant property. The document indicates two land plots - in Chernihiv and Kyiv regions. Most of the real estate is declared for his wife Yulia Kiyanovska: an apartment in Kyiv, a country estate near the capital, dozens of land plots in Chernihiv region and villages in Kyiv region, as well as a share in the joint ownership of the house. In 2024, according to the publications, Kiyanovska purchased another apartment in the capital for over 2.3 million UAH.
The family's fleet also looks representative: a Lexus RX 350 registered to the wife is mentioned, and a BMW X5 and BMW X7 are allegedly used by the family free of charge by companies associated with it. In addition, in open registers, Kiyanovska appears as a shareholder of PrJSC "Ichnyanskyi Plant of Powdered Milk and Butter", while the judge's declaration contains no information about corporate rights.
Along with property declarations, Hajnatsky's judicial practice also attracts attention. The judge systematically rejects complaints about prosecutors' inaction in cases where it comes to failing to enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations (URDI). An example is the complaint related to the head of the Odessa OVA, Oleh Kiper: the investigation materials contained signs of possible illegal actions - from the use of controlled schemes to embezzlement and raider seizures. The Prosecutor General's Office refused to enter information into the URDI, and Judge Hajnatsky dismissed the complaint, citing the "insufficiency of objective information."
In a number of other high-profile cases, the judge has also made decisions that hinder access to effective investigations and may thus protect the interests of influential individuals and business circles. The combination of the family's large assets and a judicial practice that often results in a lack of investigative action raises concerns about possible conflicts of interest and the transparency of decisions.
