Failures of the
Council of Judges

Law No. 1635-ІХ established the Ethics Council, which was meant to verify the compliance of current and potential HCJ members with the criteria of professional ethics and integrity. The CoJ had to propose three out of six Ethics Council members. However, it deliberately sabotaged the requirements of the law to keep the members of the HCJ of low-integrity in their positions. Under the law, the Council of Judges was supposed to delegate its candidates by September 13, 2021, but failed to do so. Instead, at the same meeting, the CoJ supported the HCJ’s appeal to the Plenum of the Supreme Court regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of the law on “cleansing” of the HCJ.

This intentional opposition of the Council of Judges to judicial reform raised concerns of the President of Ukraine as the initiator of the HCJ reform and international partners. The spokesman of the US State Department, Ned Price, stated that the CoJ’s actions “threaten to derail the promise of real judicial reform in Ukraine” G7 ambassadors expressed their disappointment with the delay on the part of the CoJ, and the President of the Venice Commission Gianni Buquicchio urged the CoJ to stop delaying the process.

Only on October 23, 40 days after the deadline stipulated by the law and following pressure from international partners, did the Council of Judges delegate candidates to the Ethics Council. However, the public had serious doubts about the integrity of two of the four candidates proposed by the CoJ. The details about this can be found in another material.

The CoJ was supposed to select 3 out of 6 candidates for the Ethics Council, which verifies current and potential members of the HCJ for integrity, and 3 out of 6 members of the Selection Commission responsible for the list of candidates for the HQCJ. The CoJ also appointed one member and one deputy member to the Advisory Group of Experts (AGE), which assesses the moral qualities and professional competencies of candidates for the positions of the Constitutional Court judges. However, the CoJ failed the crucial task entrusted to it by the legislator, almost always delegating candidates without due verification and often ones of rather questionable integrity.

For instance, Volodymyr Syverin, delegated to the Ethics Council, violated the requirements of anti-corruption legislation, likely pressured his subordinates as the head of a court, issued the decision in a high-profile case with a clear violation of the law, tried to make himself  “one year younger” by manipulating the system of cases’ automatic distribution to prolong his term in office as a judge. Syverin's children repeatedly received real estate as a gift, in particular, a 6-room apartment of 222 square meters. During the interview with the Council of Judges, Syverin demonstrated that he was unable to phrase his thoughts logically at a level that would be expected of a judge. However, numerous doubts about his integrity did not prevent the CoJ from delegating him to the Ethics Council.

Yurii Triasun, another member of the Ethics Council within the CoJ quota, was a member of the panel that released from custody a former police officer suspected of killing three Maidan protesters — the suspect then escaped and is still in hiding from the investigation. He declared a land plot with violations and failed to explain the origin of his USD 60,000 in cash. In addition, he may have had a conflict of interest with some HCJ members who previously refused to consider 8 complaints against him.

The CoJ acted similarly when the Selection Commission was formed to nominate HQCJ Members. The law stipulates that a member of the Commission must have an impeccable reputation, high professional qualities, public credibility, and meet the criterion of integrity. However, the CoJ failed to verify the candidates’ compliance with these criteria even minimally, and the “competition” consisted of the chair of the CoJ reading out biographies and cover letters of the candidates, which was followed by a secret vote. The CoJ did not consider information provided by the public about some of the candidates failing to meet the integrity criterion.

This practice continued during the formation of the AGE. Yaroslav Romaniuk, elected based on the CoJ quota, was the chair of the Supreme Court of Yanukovych times. He supported the infamous “January 16 laws”, claiming that by their adoption, Ukraine “is reforming its legislation in line with European standards.” It is well known that the “January 16 laws” restricted citizens’ rights to freedom of speech and conscience, freedom of assembly, and made it illegal to protest against Yanukovych’s regime. Romaniuk received a negative opinion of the Public Integrity Council. As part of the judicial panel at the Supreme Court, he issued a decision that misinterpreted a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This was asserted by the ECtHR itself in the case of Bochan v. Ukraine 2: “the Supreme Court reasoning...  can only be construed as being ‘grossly arbitrary’ or as entailing a ‘denial of justice’” (clause 64). As an HCJ member, Romaniuk used his official car to attend the birthday party of Valerii Heletei, head of the State Security Administration, accompanied by two candidates for the positions of Supreme Court judges he was supposed to assess: Borys Hulko and Bohdan Lvov, the latter of whom was subsequently found by journalist investigations to have a Russian passport. In addition, the judge’s daughter received a high-end apartment in Kyiv for free and, in 2012–2016, made 15 trips abroad with a total duration of 131 days, which did not correspond to the income she indicated.

Romaniuk’s deputy in the AGE, Volodymyr Kuzmenko, is a “Maidan judge.” He was part of the panel of judges that upheld the ban on conducting any mass events in the center of Kyiv during the Revolution of Dignity. In the so-called “Vovk tapes,” former head of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK) Pavlo Vovk called Kuzmenko “our man” in a conversation about helping judges of the appellate instance to avoid disciplinary liability. Kuzmenko was on the judicial panel that violated the law while considering the high-profile case where the losses from the Rotterdam+ formula were estimated at UAH 18 billion.
‍
These actions of the Council of Judges showed that this body consistently represents the interests of groups of low-integrity judges and serves as a tool to maintain the status quo in the judiciary.

Bohdan Monich has been a member of the CoJ since 2014 and its head since 2019. From the so-called “Vovk tapes” we learned that Monich became the head of the CoJ with the help of Pavlo Vovk, Andrii Portnov, and Andrii Bohdan. “We decided to overthrow Tkachuk. We calculated who had good ratings, we calculated that if Butenko was questionable, we could ‘play’ with Monich, so we did,” — these words of the former head of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK) Pavlo Vovk are recorded on the “tapes”. By the way, the DACK is famous for a large number of arbitrary and illegal decisions and was eventually liquidated in December 2022.

On July 5, 2019, the CoJ elected Bohdan Monich as its chairman. According to the Public Integrity Council, the selection of the new chairperson was added to the agenda during the meeting itself, that is, there was no official plan to do it in advance. The CoJ rejected the proposal to postpone the meeting to nominate other candidates for the chairmanship, so Bohdan Monich was the only candidate. Despite the spontaneity of the proposal, Monich appeared to deliver a prepared speech.

The recordings from the office of the former DACK head make it clear that Pavlo Vovk needed Bohdan Monich as the chair of the CoJ to stop any inspections of the DACK:

Vovk: “Ask to convey a message to Monich that, damn it, he cannot f*cking raise the issue of the District Court at all.”
Interlocutor: “Okay!”
Vovk: “No external management, no checks and so on.”
Vovk: “… Otherwise, we don’t get why the f*ck we helped him get elected in the first place. He now thinks that he’s so f*cking great, that he was just elected.

Monich’s first decision as the head of the CoJ was to terminate the order on the inspection of the DACK. After the “Vovk tapes” were released, Monich not only failed to condemn Vovk, but also publicly defended him, saying that public calls for liquidation of the DACK were illegitimate, the publication of “Vovk tapes” delivered an “irreparable blow to the reputation of judicial authorities,” and the actions of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) were destructive. In his statements, Bohdan Monich said that following the publication of NABU recordings, DACK judges were not served with suspicion papers, which was untrue, and the case is already with the High Anti-Corruption Court.

Monich also actively objected to the idea of liquidating the DACK. He even prepared an appeal to the President and the Parliament against this liquidation. The Council of Judges, headed by Monich, intentionally delayed the judicial reform and delegated low-integrity members to selection commissions.

What is more, Bohdan Monich may be involved in the so-called “amber case” — the NABU’s criminal investigation into the receipt of bribes by former MP Boryslav Rozenblat for assisting a foreign company with mining amber in Ukraine. He was on the judicial panel that upheld the decision of the first instance court regarding the suspension of the validity of special permits to investigate amber deposits.

Following the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion into Ukraine, courts started denying (1, 2, 3) access to public information en masse. More information about this can be found in DEJURE Foundation’s analytical report. For example, an inquiry regarding holidays of a judge who was a candidate for the High Council of Justice (HCJ) was denied. The courts cited the decision of the Council of Judges of March 25, 2022, where the CoJ recommended courts to avoid responding to inquiries, with no explanations required, until the end of martial law. The CoJ went as far as to suggest forwarding inquiries to the Security Service of Ukraine to have the senders verified for potential intentions of a diversion. This decision violated the requirements of the Law “On Access to Public Information,” which obliges information administrators to explain what circumstances specifically make providing the requested information impossible (such as the destruction of premises and evacuation of employees). This is corroborated by court decisions where martial law was recognized as an insufficient ground to deny the provision of information.
‍
DEJURE Foundation sent two requests to change this decision to the CoJ, but the response was negative. Noteworthy, at that time, the competition for the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the HCJ, and the High Qualification Commission of Judges resumed. Most candidates for these bodies were judges, which is why it was crucial to receive public information to verify their integrity. However, the CoJ’s illegal decision allowed the courts to conceal this data. Only 10 months later, following prolonged public criticism, did the CoJ cancel this infamous decision.

The CoJ did not only recommend courts to refuse to provide public information without due legal grounds, it did so itself, including information about CCU candidates. In one case, a court decision established that the CoJ rejected the request without sufficient reason; however, the Council failed to implement this decision.

A high-profile situation in 2015 was around the so-called “Babenko tapes” — recordings where the head of the Appellate Court of Cherkasy Oblast, Volodymyr Babenko, pressures the judge of this court, Serhii Bondarenko, into making a knowingly unlawful decision. After Bondarenko refused to follow Babenko’s illegal instruction, he was targeted with systematic pressure and obstruction of his work by the chair of the court. Bondarenko turned to the CoJ for protection, but its then-head, Valentyna Simonenko, did not see anything criminal in Babenko’s actions and considered the publicity of this case achieved by Bondarenko damaging to the image of the judiciary. Notably, Simonenko probably has a Russian passport and a sister who works in the occupation authorities of Crimea.
‍
The CoJ set up two working groups to verify judge Bondarenko’s appeal, but both failed to find gross violations in Babenko’s actions. By the way, one of these working groups included Liudmyla Volkova, who is now a member of the HQCJ. Despite significant doubts of the public about Ms. Volkova’s integrity, the Selection Commission recommended her as a member of the HQCJ, and the HCJ appointed her. The integrity of current and potential members of the HCJ was checked by the Ethics Council, members of which were, again, delegated by the CoJ. According to judge Bondarenko, during her interview for the position of an HQCJ member Volkova lied about the content of her conversation with him as part of the activities of the CoJ working group.

In addition, it was Serhii Bondarenko who reported the illegal expropriation of the premises of Cherkasy Oblast Appellate Court costing over UAH 15 million, which was later established by the court. However, the CoJ failed to respond to this incident as well. Notably, the suspect in this case is the very same Babenko, who has been hiding from law enforcement since 2021.
‍
Larysa Holnyk, the judge of Oktiabrskyi District Court of Poltava, refused to close the case against then-mayor of Poltava Oleksandr Mamai for a bribe. After Holnyk made a public statement about the attempt to bribe her, the head of her court, Oleksandr Strukov, started obstructing her work, publicly insulting her and using force against her. You can find out more about Strukov’s numerous actions and judicial decisions indicative of corruption here and here. At one point Holnyk and her husband were even attacked by unknown individuals armed with bats.

The CoJ did not respond to  Larysa Holnyk’s statements regarding being pressured by Strukov for three years. It was only in 2017 that the CoJ concluded that Strukov’s actions and abuse were unethical and filed a complaint against him with the HCJ. However, soon, Oleh Tkachuk was elected as the new head of the CoJ. By the way, he is the one who proposed an “anthem of judges” in prison music style. After Tkachuk was elected, the CoJ failed to follow up on the complaint against Strukov filed to the HCJ and thus to protect Holnyk from abuse by the head of the court. By the way, for her fight to exposé corruption in court, Holnyk received a special award from the international organization Blueprint for Free Speech.

The CoJ does nothing in numerous high-profile cases. For example, it failed to respond to the appeal on the disappearance of case files in relation to Maidan judges considered by CoJ Secretary Olena Zhuravska; on the illegal interference in the automatic case distribution system to help DACK judge Marulina avoid liability for driving under the influence. Instead, the CoJ awarded a certificate of honor to judge Stratovych, who was caught engaging in bribery.
‍
By its connivance in these major cases, the CoJ showed that it wasn’t an agency fighting for the independence of judges and their protection from pressure, but rather an agency that covered up the blue wall of silence  in the judiciary and tried to keep corruption scandals well-hidden.

Zenovii Kholodniuk was the Deputy Head of the State Judicial Administration (SJA) during the Yanukovych regime. This was why he was subject to the law on the cleansing of public authorities. However, in 2016, the Council of Judges refused to remove Kholodniuk, who was the head of the SJA at the time, from office. Only one of the 26 CoJ members voted in favor of his dismissal. Answering journalists’ questions about his activities during the Revolution of Dignity, Mr. Kholodniuk said, “This is no longer interesting. This is already in the past. […] I have nothing to do with the cleansing.” As a result, Kholodniuk remained in office as the head of the SJA until October 28, 2020, resigning when he no longer felt secure in his position following his suspension  by the High Anti-Corruption Court.
‍
Zenovii Kholodniuk was repeatedly involved in cases with indicators of corruption. He probably gave instructions to enter into a UAH-10-million contract with his friend’s company, bypassing a tender. Kholodniuk and his relatives own numerous properties, clearly exceeding these individuals’ declared income.

The so-called “Vovk tapes” made it public knowledge that Kholodniuk was helping the head of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv, Pavlo Vovk, to illegally seize control over the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ). Kholodniuk dismissed two HQCJ members ahead of schedule, appointing two individuals loyal to Vovk instead. Shortly before that, the DACK, headed by Vovk, blocked the appointment of the new head of the SJA to replace Kholodniuk, and in a phone conversation, Vovk was explaining how he made arrangements to keep Kholodniuk in office. In the case of DACK judges, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau announced suspicion against Kholodniuk, but the latter avoided liability due to the statute of limitations expiring. All these illegal actions involving Kholodniuk would have been avoided if the CoJ had fulfilled the requirement regarding the cleansing of authorities, dismissing Kholodniuk from office.

According to the law, the High Council of Justice (HCJ) has to approve uniform indicators to assess the integrity and professional ethics of a judge (candidate for the position of a judge). These criteria must be adopted by the HCJ following consultations with other agencies, including the Council of Judges. In February 2024, a Working Group was set up to develop these criteria, with the CoJ delegating two of its members — Olena Hanechko and Oleh Holovenko. However, there are considerable doubts about their integrity.
‍
Olena Hanechko was first appointed as a judge in Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv. Coincidentally, her father was a prosecutor in this very district of the capital for 17 years. Hanechko repeatedly made questionable decisions in high-profile cases. Particularly, she did not consider the prosecutor’s request to take the stepson of oligarch Dmytro Firtash,  Serhii Kalynovskyi, into custody. According to media reports, he caused an accident, killing two people. This way, she helped Kalynovskyi evade justice since he fled abroad. Hanechko was part of the judicial panel that cancelled the high requirements for suppliers and essentially ruled in favour of a company connected with a former official of the Yanukovych government, who also improperly supplies food to the military. Interestingly, this judicial panel also included Volodymyr Kuzmenko, who was delegated to the Advisory Group of Experts by the CoJ.

Olena Hanechko’s lack of integrity was highlighted by the High Qualification Commission of Judges and the Public Integrity Council (PIC). Hanechko contested the negative opinion of the PIC about herself — naturally, in the District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK). The latter satisfied the claim, though disputes regarding PIC opinions are not subject to court trial at all, as ruled by the Supreme Court. Hanechko was also on the list of 47 judges who violated the oath and were the subject of a presidential appeal to the HCJ. The President insisted on having them dismissed from office due to corruption.

Hanechko violated anti-corruption requirements multiple times: she failed to declare real estate (2012, 2013 and 2014), and a car, she failed to transfer corporate rights under somebody else’s management as required, and she failed to indicate her stepmother, who is a prosecutor, in her declaration. In 2013, Olena Hanechko had 2 business-class cars and did not provide data on her husband's income and property, while he allegedly sold an elite Porsche Cayenne, a house worth USD 300,000, and drove an expensive Ford Mustang.

Just as controversial is Oleh Holovenko, whom the HQCJ recommended for dismissal from the position of a judge in 2019 because he failed his test for professional competency (scoring less than 50%). However, the HCJ at the time, known for covering up corrupt judges, did not dismiss Holovenko, waiting for him to dispute the HQCJ’s decision in the Supreme Court.

Holovenko probably participated in the forced obstruction of the HQCJ’s work under the guidance of the former head of the DACK, Pavlo Vovk, filing a lawsuit against HQCJ member Tetiana Veselska. Holovenko’s representative in this case was Oleksandr Krotiuk, who can be found on “Vovk’s tapes” and is the accused in that case.

There are major questions about the sources of funding for which the judge’s mother-in-law, who worked as a hypermarket cashier, purchased a 123 sq.m apartment in Kyiv in 2021. According to the judge’s declaration, the apartment was purchased for UAH 1.9 million (USD 72 thousand). However, a similar apartment in this residential complex currently costs about USD 200,000. Actually, it is Holovenko himself who uses this apartment.

In addition, he made decisions that were likely politically influenced: cancelling voting results at polling stations to help a candidate from “The Party of the Regions” win parliamentary elections; disregarding a violation of the deadline to run for office.
‍
After reading the “accomplishments” of Hanechko and Holovenko, the question arises: is there no one among the CoJ’s members who has better integrity to be delegated to develop the indicators of judges’ integrity?

In October 2018, the Council of Judges of Ukraine seriously considered an anthem of judicial self-governance and judicial authorities (an audio is available here). According to the agency’s press service, this anthem was meant to draw the attention of judges and the public to the processes taking place in the judiciary. The symbols of the judiciary, probably including the anthem, should reflect the prestige of the profession, its highly responsible nature, and the greatness of the judicial vocation. However, the judicial corps and the public had an extremely negative response to the anthem. People commented that the so-called anthem sounds very similar to the prison music style, highly popular in Russia. On November 3, 2018, the Council of Judges published voting results, with 1085 people participating. Only 8% supported the proposed CoJ anthem, and 92% objected to its adoption. On the same day, then-head of the CoJ Oleh Tkachuk supported the “anthem”, called its author a gifted person, and said that we had democracy in Ukraine and thus, every style of music was legitimate. He also noted that with its work, the CoJ contributes to the formation of the image of the judiciary. Readers can draw their own conclusions regarding the image that this music is supposed to form.

We do not know what awaits us
We hope for heaven in the end.
Do not judge, and you will not be judged,
We say with hope in our hearts.

Chorus:

‍Don’t jump to conclusions about judges,
They have an uneasy path in life.
Let their candle burn without burning out,
About the mantle given by God.

Not a month, not a week, not a year
Going to the courtroom is like an attack from a trench
“All rise! The court is in session!"” the echo will say,
And gazes hit like rain on the ceiling.

And then there’s a flurry of problems at home.
And you cannot just get happiness for nothing.
For some reason, nobody really understands
That judges are also just regular people.