The head of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv, Yevhen Martynov, has found himself at the epicenter of accusations from public activists and complainants: he is accused of obstructing the investigation of a traffic accident involving a company car, falsifying property data during a competition, and systematically covering up possible offenses through “judicial circular suretyship.” There are no official conclusions from the investigation yet — several complaints about law enforcement inaction were returned with judges’ refusals.
Criticism of the head of the Shevchenkivskyi district court of Kyiv, Yevhen Martynov, comes from various sources — from victims of a traffic accident to public activists who insist on the need for an independent inspection of his activities. According to them, this summer Martynov, while driving a company Volkswagen, was involved in a traffic accident at the intersection of Pravednyky and Dorohozhytska streets, as a result of which the motorcyclist received serious injuries. Allegedly, videos from the police officers’ body cameras recorded the event, but the materials were not transferred to the territorial department of the State Bureau of Investigation in Kyiv — according to the complainants, due to the interference of the head of the court himself.
Earlier, in 2018, Martynov allegedly failed the competition for the High Anti-Corruption Court due to inconsistencies in the declaration - a version that contradicts the official explanation. In recent years, the judge has received, as the initiators of the appeals claim, at least 16 complaints; none of them, they say, has received a comprehensive review.
Separate statements concern employees of the court's staff. In particular, it concerns Alina Zborschik (former head of staff), who is associated with business connections in the temporarily occupied territories and registration of companies in the Russian Federation. With official income at the average level, Zborschik owns a townhouse near Kyiv and other assets, which raises additional questions about the origin of the funds.
The initiators of the complaints have repeatedly appealed to law enforcement agencies. Some of the procedural appeals concerned the inaction of the NABU and the SBU regarding the failure to enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations regarding individual episodes involving Martynov. However, several court decisions, including the rulings of the investigating judges of the Higher Criminal Court of Ukraine and the Solomyansky District Court of Kyiv, refused to satisfy the complaints about the inaction of the authorized persons.
Critics speak of a "system of protecting one's own" in the judicial environment, when the automated distribution of cases is allegedly changed under the influence of management, and questions about unlawful decisions encounter organizational resistance. Martynov himself and representatives of the court, as a rule, do not give public comments on this issue or limit themselves to theses about compliance with the law and internal procedures.
The episodes of accountability — both in the case of a traffic accident and in relation to doubts in the declaration information — remain a subject of public resonance. Activists insist on independent verification, transparent consideration of complaints and public conclusions of regulatory bodies to eliminate the feeling of impunity and restore trust in the judicial system.
