A foothold for the return of low-integrity judges: the Supreme Court adopted a ruling that could help Inna Otrosh be reinstated

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (GC SC) has issued yet another decision that helps low-integrity judges avoid dismissal. This time, the GC SC annulled the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) to recommend the dismissal of “Maidan judge” Maryna Lozynska following her qualification assessment. But the issue goes beyond Lozynska herself — the Supreme Court’s reasoning may be used to reinstate the scandalous Inna Otrosh. Let’s take a closer look.

What is known about Maryna Lozynska’s case?

In 2019, an HQCJ panel found Lozynska suitable for her position, but since the Public Integrity Council (PIC) had issued a negative opinion, the final decision was to be made by the full Commission. However, the HQCJ’s powers were suspended before it could complete the procedure.

In December 2020, under the notorious “Babiy Law,” the High Council of Justice (HCJ) submitted a recommendation to the President for Lozynska’s lifetime appointment without a completed qualification assessment — but the President did not sign it. In January 2024, Lozynska appeared before the updated HQCJ’s plenary composition and was recommended for dismissal.

In its ruling, the Grand Chamber argued that when the HCJ, under the “Babiy Law,” submitted its recommendation to the President, it allegedly confirmed that Lozynska had completed her qualification assessment. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court judges, the interview conducted by the new HQCJ’s plenary was unlawful.

However, the GC SC’s conclusions are highly questionable. The “Babiy Law” applied only to a simplified appointment procedure during the period when the HQCJ was not functioning. It says nothing about automatic completion of a qualification assessment — nor does it grant the HCJ authority to evaluate judges instead of the HQCJ. Moreover, the Constitutional Court explicitly stated that only the HQCJ has the power to conduct such assessments, and no other body may substitute it. For this reason, the HQCJ lawfully continued Lozynska’s assessment in 2024, and its decision is valid.

Who is Inna Otrosh, and why is her case similar?

Inna Otrosh, a former judge of the Kyiv Commercial Court, is the daughter of Inna Otrosh Sr., an influential figure from the Yanukovych era. Her mother seems to have secured her a privileged life: a transfer from a court in Luhansk region to the capital without competition, a suburban mansion of over 500 m², two Kyiv apartments totalling nearly 250 m², a Lexus, and yet another luxury apartment in central Kyiv (139 m²).

After Russia’s aggression in 2014, Judge Otrosh Jr. regularly visited “relatives” in the occupied Crimea and in St. Petersburg. During her HQCJ interview, she claimed that the occupation of Crimea was “the fault of Ukrainian state bodies that failed to ensure border security at the time.”

Just like Lozynska, Otrosh never completed a qualification assessment before the full HQCJ, yet the HCJ — invoking the “Babiy Law” — submitted a recommendation to the President for her appointment. Moreover, both Lozynska and Otrosh belong to the so-called “Usatyi list” — around 180 low-integrity judges whose qualification assessments were jeopardised by a 2023 Supreme Court decision. Importantly, the European Commission has repeatedly flagged this decision, warning that it undermines the effectiveness of judicial vetting procedures.

The cases of Otrosh and Lozynska are remarkably similar, but there is one crucial difference the Grand Chamber must take into account: in 2021, the GC SC already established that the HQCJ panel’s earlier decision regarding Otrosh was not final. Therefore, in 2024, Otrosh rightfully appeared before the full HQCJ, which then recommended her dismissal. We hope the Grand Chamber judges will not forget their own prior ruling.

The Lozynska decision once again underscores the importance of the European Commission’s recommendation for next year: Ukraine must verify the integrity declarations of current judges and conduct a new selection to the Supreme Court with substantial involvement of international experts.