How Did the Week Go at the High Council of Justice? March 17–21, 2025

The final dismissal of two judges from the scandalous District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK), including its head Pavlo Vovk, and the first results of the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors work — this week (March 17–21), the High Council of Justice (HCJ) adopted a number of positive decisions:

• Pavlo Vovk and Aliona Mazur, judges of the discredited District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK), were officially dismissed. They will no longer receive judicial salaries or retain their status as judges. Most likely, the now-former judges will appeal these decisions to the Supreme Court, which has a track record of reinstating low-integrity judges. At the same time, 36 DACK judges still retain their status and substantial judicial salaries. Reviewing the many complaints against DACK judges should be a priority for both the Disciplinary Inspectors and the HCJ.

• The HCJ upheld the dismissal of Mykola Shershak, a judge of the Zarichnyi District Court of Sumy. He became infamous for hiding a $2,000 bribe in a jar of peas. HCJ members Serhii Burlakov and Stanislav Kravchenko proposed halting the disciplinary case until the verdict of the High Anti-Corruption Court, which found Shershak guilty and sentenced him to seven years in prison, enters into legal force. Currently, the judge is appealing the conviction. Burlakov and Kravchenko thus oppose the established HCJ practice that decisions by any authority, including court verdicts, are not determinative for the disciplinary body. In practice, the HCJ should not and does not wait for a final criminal conviction — otherwise, individuals like Vovk or judges caught taking bribes could evade dismissal for years.

• The HCJ dismissed Olena Panchenko, a judge of the Avdiivka City Court of Donetsk Oblast, based on a recommendation from the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ). Panchenko was caught back in 2011 taking a $6,000 bribe in exchange for a lighter sentence for a defendant. Although the court found her guilty, she avoided liability due to the occupation of Donetsk and the loss of criminal case files. As a result, the appellate court could not review her appeal, and the conviction never became final. Despite being found guilty of bribery, Panchenko taught at the National School of Judges. One can only wonder what she was teaching future judges.

• Based on a complaint from DEJURE Foundation, the HCJ issued a warning to Oleh Bilotserkivets, a judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv. The HCJ revised the decision of the Third Disciplinary Chamber, reclassifying his violation from a “misdemeanor” to a “gross violation of the law that resulted in negative consequences.”

• The Third Disciplinary Chamber decided to dismiss Valentyn Tomylko, a judge of the Poltava Court of Appeals. He was caught on NABU recordings in the office of judge Halionkin, where the two, along with another judge, Kryuchko, were heard attempting to influence a judge handling a drunk driving case involving Tomylko’s son. Tomylko is also implicated in accepting a $600 bribe uncovered during a NABU search of his office.

• For the first time, the HCJ reviewed disciplinary cases prepared by the new Service of Disciplinary Inspectors on the merits. In two of the three cases, the HCJ supported the inspector’s proposal to hold the judges accountable. Both cases involved unjustified delays in proceedings. Notably, Judge Hanna Luhovska took nearly five years to rule on whether to open proceedings in a case, and did so only after learning that the Disciplinary Inspectors were investigating a complaint against her. She had already received a disciplinary reprimand in August 2024, and the inspector prepared the conclusion before that penalty expired. This allowed the HCJ to apply a stricter sanction: a severe reprimand with removal of bonuses for three months.

On the downside, the HCJ suspended and postponed consideration of the HQCJ’s recommendations to dismiss judges Andriy Salo and Valerii Khramtsov, citing their appeals to the Supreme Court. In doing so, the HCJ is shirking its duties and hiding “behind the back” of the Supreme Court. HCJ members have the authority to independently assess the validity of HQCJ’s dismissal recommendations without waiting for Supreme Court rulings. In practice, appealing HQCJ decisions allows judges to deliberately delay their dismissal, and the HCJ, by going along with this, is enabling them.

DEJURE Foundation welcomes the HCJ’s decisions, especially the first-ever review of cases based on the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors conclusions. We look forward to more cases being reviewed on the merits with Disciplinary Inspectors involved and call for prioritizing high-profile cases — in particular, those involving DACK judges and judges caught taking bribes.