Consultations News Events Donate

Who Should Not Enter the New Supreme Court?

The High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) has finished considering the opinions of the Public Integrity Council (PIC) on the candidates’ non-compliance with the criteria of integrity and professional ethics. The Commission has afterwards held plenary meetings to award points to each candidate for their level of professional ethics and to draw up the final ranking of candidates to the Supreme Court, hence determining the final composition of the Supreme Court.   

Now the most important stage of the competition is going to start: the scores awarded by the Commission will decide the fate of the new Supreme Court. After the plenary meetings of the HQCJ, 76 candidates with the negative opinions of the PIC keep taking part in the competition. The High Qualification Commission of Judges has thus confirmed that these entrants can administer justice. At the same time, according to the regulations on qualification assessment, the HQCJ shall suspend candidate’s further participation in the competition if at least one case of dishonest behavior has been identified. Such proven cases are mentioned in the opinions of the Public Integrity Council and shall prevent the appointment of such candidates as Supreme Court judges.

Within the campaign “CHESNO. Filter the Judiciary!”, the activists of the CHESNO movement have compiled a list of candidates who still participate in the competition despite the negative opinions of the PIC which contain indisputable facts of the mismatch between these candidates’ behavior and the requirements of professional integrity and ethics.  

The following facts mentioned in the PIC opinions confirm the candidates’ unethical behavior:  

  • a judge passed the rulings violating the human rights, which was proved by the European Court of Human Rights;
  • the expenses and the property of a candidate do not match their declared income;
  • false information in the integrity declarations;
  • a judge banned peaceful assemblies and protest campaigns.

We call on the High Qualification Commission of Judges to stop participation of candidates whose unscrupulous behavior is confirmed by the PIC opinions. Some of the candidates do not match several criteria of professional ethics.  

  1. The candidates who passed the rulings violating the human rights, which was proved by the European Court of Human Rights:

Inna Berdnik

Mykhailo Hrytsiv

Anatoliy Yemets

Oleh Kryvenda

Oleksandr Prokopenko

Yaroslav Romaniuk

Tetiana Frantovska

Tetiana Shevchenko

Viktor Shkoliarov

 

  1. The candidates whose expenses and property do not match their declared income:

Anatoliy Yemets

Tetiana Kozyr

Olha Stupak

Valeriy Finaheyev

Olena Frolova

Ivan Shytskyi

 

  1. Candidates who submitted false information in the integrity declarations:

Mykhailo Hrytsiv

Anatoliy Yemets 

Oleh Kryvenda

Viacheslav Nastavnyi

Oleksandr Prokopenko

Serhiy Slynko

Tetiana Frantovska

Tetiana Shevchenko

Viktor Shkoliarov

 

  1. Candidates who banned peaceful assemblies and protest campaigns:

Svitlana Holovchuk

Oleksandr Zolotnikov

Yuriy Retseburynskyi

Iryna Saprykina

Yuriy Cherpak

 

Ми надаємо безоплатні консультації із юридичних питань у сфері інформаційного та медійного права. Будемо раді поділитися з вами своїм досвідом.

Листи з інших питань не розглядаються.

Докладніше про консультації

 

Задайте Ваше питання через форму:

Ваше ім'я (обов'язково)

Ваш email (обов'язково)

Ваше повідомлення


Також ви можете звернутися до нас іншими способами: