HCJ Members Salikhov and Burlakov once again block prosecution of judge accused of serious violations

Yesterday, the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice decided not to bring judge Vyacheslav Pidpalyi of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv to responsibility. This decision allows the accused in the “Maidan case” to evade responsibility.

In 2016, the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv was handling a case involving a traffic police officer accused of falsifying a report against a participant of the Revolution of Dignity (case No. 757/37845/14-k). At that time, judge Bilotserkivets recused himself, and Pidpalyi took nearly 18 months to consider this recusal. Due to this delay, the statute of limitations for holding the accused accountable expired, and the case was closed.

A complaint regarding the judge’s actions was merged by the High Council of Justice in 2021 with other complaints about violations of reasonable timeframes for case consideration. Eventually, the rapporteur Melnyk proposed holding judge Pidpalyi accountable.

However, only HCJ member Tetyana Bondarenko supported this proposal. Vitaliy Salikhov suggested finding no violations in the judge’s actions and closing the case and both Salikhov and Burlakov supported this proposal. When Tetyana Bondarenko proposed allowing the complainants to appeal the Chamber’s decision, Salikhov and Burlakov rejected this proposal. Therefore, the Chamber’s decision is final.

This situation once again demonstrates that the right to appeal a decision should not depend on the members of the Disciplinary Chamber that reviewed the complaint. Both judges and complainants should have equal rights to appeal the decisions of disciplinary chambers.