Despite years of claims of judicial reform and cleansing of the system, the Ukrainian judiciary continues to demonstrate a resilient ability to self-protect. One of the key mechanisms for maintaining the status quo remains the practice of the High Council of Justice, which allows judges with a dubious reputation to avoid responsibility and retire with honorable retirement with a lifetime stipend.
Formally, the right to resign is legal and guaranteed for judges with at least 20 years of experience. However, in practice, this institution is increasingly used as a way to avoid disciplinary dismissal when a judge is under threat of punishment for corruption, gross misconduct, or discrediting the position.
As analysts at the DEJURE Foundation point out, the problem lies in the discretionary powers of the High Council of Justice. The HJC has the right, but is not obliged, to suspend consideration of a judge's resignation application while disciplinary proceedings are ongoing. It is this gap that creates the conditions for selective decisions.
A typical scenario is as follows: a judge is caught taking a bribe, committing gross procedural violations, or even being detained for drunk driving. Without waiting for the final hearing, he submits a resignation letter. If the Supreme Court of Justice considers it faster than the disciplinary case is completed, the judge leaves office without any sanctions, receiving the status of a retired judge and lifelong payments from the budget.
Among the high-profile examples is the judge of the Odessa Court of Appeal, Oleksandr Knyazyuk, who was repeatedly stopped for driving while intoxicated. Despite this, the High Council of Justice allowed him to resign peacefully.
A similar story happened to Lyudmila Goryachkivska from the Uman City District Court, who was suspected of facilitating the fraudulent acquisition of real estate and was documented receiving a bribe of $9,500. Instead of being dismissed “under the article,” she received honorary status and lifelong detention.
Even more telling is the case of Poltava judge Hanna Andrienko. She systematically delayed the consideration of cases involving drunk drivers, effectively allowing dozens of violators to escape responsibility. When the High Qualification Commission of Judges filed a motion to dismiss her for unsuitability for the position, the Supreme Judicial Council ignored this document and first granted her resignation. Today, the judge receives over 75,000 hryvnias per month from the state budget.
A separate problem remains the attitude of the Supreme Court of Justice to property violations. Although the law obliges the Council to assess the correspondence of a judge's lifestyle to his income, in practice the Supreme Court of Justice often postpones consideration of complaints, waiting for the completion of NACP inspections. Such delay allows judges to avoid responsibility for years, and later to exercise the right to resign.
A case in point is the case of Judge Ihor Dashutin of the Administrative Court of Cassation, against whom journalists revealed the use of luxury real estate not reflected in the declarations. Despite this, the disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court refused to open proceedings until the completion of external inspections.
In addition, the High Council of Justice systematically delays consideration of the HQCJ's proposals to dismiss dishonest judges. In recent years, less than half of such recommendations have been considered, while judges continue to work, receive salaries, and enjoy immunity.
The situation is further complicated by the unequal rights of the parties in the disciplinary process. A judge can appeal any decision against him, while the complainant effectively depends on the permission of the same disciplinary chamber that has already made the decision. This creates a vicious circle of impunity.
Experts emphasize: without a mandatory suspension of dismissal procedures until the completion of disciplinary cases and without equal rights to appeal, it is impossible to talk about cleaning up the judicial system. Every hryvnia paid to a dishonest retired judge undermines trust in the state and demonstrates that responsibility in the judicial system can still be exchanged for financial privileges.
