225 open disciplinary cases and 27 sanctioned judges: what has the Service of the Disciplinary Inspectors achieved in six months?

Six months ago, a new body appeared in Ukraine’s justice system — the Service of the Disciplinary Inspectors (SDI). It is the disciplinary inspectors who review complaints against judges and prepare conclusions for the Disciplinary Chambers (DCs) of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) on whether to open a case or refuse to proceed, and whether to hold a judge accountable.

Recently, the DEJURE Foundation conducted a detailed analysis of the SDI’s first four months of work. Now we assess the body’s six months in operation, as several important changes have occurred over the past two months.

In six months, the SDI processed 4,810 complaints — 30% of all complaints distributed among inspectors. This is a significant volume, but it was achieved mainly by processing unfounded complaints. This approach mirrors the practice previously demonstrated by HCJ members themselves when they performed the functions of disciplinary inspectors.

At the same time, there are positive results. Over six months, inspectors initiated the opening of 225 disciplinary cases, 69 of them in May and June 2025. The most disciplinary cases were opened based on the conclusions of Vyacheslav Pleskach (42), Vyacheslav Cherep (19), and Oleg Ilnytskyi, Olena Tehliaieva, and Valerii Osietrov (17 each). By contrast, the conclusions of certain inspectors — including Oleksii Kabanets, Tetiana Ostapenko, Ihor Zaika, and Nataliia Drobchak — led to only 2–4 cases being opened.

Importantly, the conclusions of disciplinary inspectors also became grounds for holding 27 judges disciplinarily accountable (for comparison, in the first four months of the SDI’s operation, there were only four such cases). This surge is due to the average length of case consideration in disciplinary chambers — three to six months. Thus, we are now seeing the results of earlier months’ work. If this pace is maintained or increased, it will be a significant step forward.

However, the conclusions of six other inspectors have not led to any disciplinary sanctions at all.

All inspectors are assigned to one of the three HCJ Disciplinary Chambers. The Third DC has held the most judges accountable based on their conclusions — 12. Next is the Second DC (8 judges) and the First DC (7 judges). However, the Second DC leads in the number of dismissal motions, applying this measure to judges Viktor Polovynka, Volodymyr Kuksov, and Liubov Nemchenko. Based on inspectors’ conclusions, the Third DC moved to dismiss Oleksandr Savin, while the First DC has not yet sought the dismissal of any judge. Most of these decisions still need to be reviewed by the full HCJ.

A particularly positive trend is the opening of disciplinary cases against judges of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK) — Volodymyr Keleberda, Bohdan Sanin, Ruslan Arsirii, Oleksii Ohurtsov, and others. Society has long awaited a response to their actions. To ensure these cases do not stall, inspectors must promptly prepare conclusions on the merits (the law allows 30 days for this), and HCJ members must place these matters on the agenda.