Analysis of Draft Law No. 13137, Which Makes Disciplinary Dismissal of Judges Impossible

The dismissal of judges caught drunk driving, taking bribes, collaborating with the enemy, and committing other serious offences will become virtually impossible through disciplinary proceedings. Even the judges of the infamous District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK) will remain in office. This is what draft law No. 13137, co-initiated by Denys Maslov, head of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Legal Policy, proposes.

The High Council of Justice (HCJ), the body responsible for sanctioning judges, has, over the past year and a half, dismissed a number of judges for “conduct that discredits the title of judge or undermines the authority of the judiciary.” Simply put, for actions that blatantly violate judicial ethics. However, this ground may be removed from the list of disciplinary violations, rendering the punishment of low-integrity judges impossible.

Dismantling the Key Ground for Judicial Dismissal

The main reason judges are dismissed by the HCJ is “conduct that discredits the title of judge or undermines the authority of the judiciary.” Draft Law No. 13137 formally retains this ground but radically narrows and distorts its meaning. MPs propose removing the ethical component and reducing it to:

• Property violations:

  • Discrepancy between a judge’s lifestyle/expenses and their official income;

  • Failure to prove the legal origin of assets acquired after appointment.

  However, these grounds will apply only if the discrepancy exceeds UAH 1.5 million! So if a judge can’t explain where they got UAH 1.4 million for a car, it won’t count as a violation.

• Domestic violence

• Gross disrespect for court participants

• Drunk driving. However, even this narrowed ground will be toothless. Most judges caught driving under the influence refuse to undergo sobriety testing, as seen with Oleksii Tandyr and Volodymyr Borodiiuk. Under this draft law, refusal to take the test exempts a judge from disciplinary liability.

If this law had been in force, the HCJ would not have been able to dismiss Pavlo Vovk, other DACK judges, former Supreme Court head Vsevolod Kniaziev, bribery suspects (e.g. the “coffee lovers” of the Kyiv Court of Appeal: Viktor Hlynianyi, Yurii Slyva, Ihor Palyenyk, Viacheslav Dziubin), judges with Russian passports (Liudmyla Arestova, Arina Litvinova), traitors (Iryna Ukhaniova, Larysa Bohomolova, Nataliia Sharko, Svitlana Fedorets, Dmytro Demochko), or judges from Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi court who helped individuals illegally avoid mobilization (Boiarskyi, Zaveriukha, Savytskyi).

These judges were dismissed under the very provisions Denys Maslov proposes to abolish, namely, for conduct that discredits the judiciary in terms of morality, integrity, impartiality, lifestyle compliance with status, and other ethical standards critical for public trust.

Blocking Complaints Against Judges

MPs also propose blocking complaints against low-integrity judges, a move that clearly targets civil society and favours the judicial mafia. Based on DEJURE Foundation complaints alone, 72 low-integrity judges were held accountable.

How would it work? If even one complaint is returned or rejected within a year, any subsequent complaint from that person can be labelled as abuse. The complainant could then be required to pay up to UAH 30,000 for each new complaint, for up to three years. This fee could be imposed by a disciplinary inspector, chamber, or the HCJ, without any prior warning.

Complaints against judges who no longer fall under the new, narrower grounds will be returned. This could include judges like Vasyl Artymovych (suspected of a $1 million bribe), Ihor Kondrashov (who allegedly seized a woman’s apartment), or the 36 DACK judges who have not yet had cases opened against them.

Lying in Declarations? – Now Allowed

The draft law removes non-filing, late filing, and false declarations from the list of disciplinary offences. Judges would be able to omit or falsify assets, income, and family connections in their declarations without any disciplinary consequences.

Currently, failure to submit or falsifying a declaration of integrity or family ties can lead to dismissal. The new draft reduces the maximum punishment to a simple reprimand, effectively nullifying post-Maidan anti-corruption efforts and the function of asset declarations.

Amnesty for Offenders?

Pending HCJ dismissal decisions that are under appeal could be nullified—including those concerning DACK judges Ablov and Pashchenko, the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi judges Boiarskyi, Zaveriukha, Savytskyi, and bribe-takers like Burkhan, Kril, and Lesko.

The bill also eliminates qualification assessment as a form of disciplinary punishment. This tool evaluates whether a judge is fit to serve, and its avoidance has been a known tactic among low-integrity judges. In 2019, OASK judges sabotaged assessments at the direction of Pavlo Vovk. Recently, the SBI pressured HQCJ members to block assessments of Pechersk court judges. Eliminating this tool is yet another form of protection for corrupt judges.

Lowered Threshold for Judicial Appointments

The number of votes needed to appoint a judge is reduced. Currently, at least 14 HCJ members must vote in favour. The draft proposes a new threshold: two-thirds of appointed members. With the current 15 members, only 10 votes would be needed, drastically increasing the odds of low-integrity candidates becoming judges.

This draft law, initiated by MPs from the Servant of the People party, protects corrupt judges and serves the interests of the judicial mafia. Its main aim is to eliminate any real possibility of dismissing a judge based on disciplinary complaints. The DEJURE Foundation urges Members of Parliament not to make a fatal mistake for Ukraine’s judiciary and to reject this draft law.