HCJ Members Salikhov and Burlakov Manipulate the Law in Case Hearings
On January 15, during a session of the Second Disciplinary Chamber, HCJ members Salikhov and Burlakov once again attempted to shield judges from accountability. Among the cases reviewed that day were those of judges Serhii Burkhan and Serhii Vovk.
During the hearing on the case of Burkhan, the head of the Verkhnodniprovskyi District Court of the Dnipropetrovsk region, Burlakov and Salikhov both voted against holding the judge accountable, blocking the rapporteur’s proposal for the second time. Burkhan is suspected of receiving a $2,500 bribe in exchange for lifting an asset seizure imposed as part of a criminal investigation. More details on his case have been previously covered by DEJURE Foundation.
In the case of Serhii Vovk, a judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv, who lifted the seizure of assets belonging to a Russian businessman worth 1 billion UAH, the HCJ members resorted to more radical methods. Rapporteur Salikhov proposed dismissing the case against Vovk, while HCJ member Kovbii proposed holding him accountable. Realizing that he might be the only one opposing disciplinary action, Burlakov then announced that Salikhov should be included in the voting list. He justified this by claiming that with the launch of the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors, the HCJ rapporteur regains their authority as a member of the Disciplinary Chamber, allowing them to vote.
As expected, Salikhov supported Burlakov’s statement, insisting on his right to vote. However, HCJ member Maselko pointed out that Salikhov remained the rapporteur in the case, meaning he was still fulfilling the role of an inspector. Additionally, as secretary, Salikhov had not included the rapporteur in the vote on whether to hold Burkhan accountable. Was saving judge Vovk their priority all along? As of now, neither proposal has been approved, and no final decision has been made in the case.
Salikhov and Burlakov’s maneuvers demonstrate clear attempts to manipulate the process to achieve their desired outcome. Such arbitrary “interpretations” of the Law on the High Council of Justice are unacceptable. If these practices persist within the HCJ, restoring public trust in the institution will remain an unattainable goal.
