How the High Council of Justice allows judges of low integrity to leave office with lifelong payments

In some cases, the High Council of Justice (HCJ) continues a practice that allows judges of low integrity to avoid accountability while simultaneously receiving generous lifelong payments from the state budget. This concerns the retirement of judges against whom disciplinary complaints — or even opened disciplinary proceedings that may lead to dismissal — already exist.

Under the law, a judge with more than 20 years of service has the right to submit a resignation request, and the HCJ is obliged to consider it within 30 days. The consequence of such a decision is lifelong financial maintenance, which can amount to hundreds of thousands of hryvnias per year, as well as the retention of judicial status. That is precisely why the law provides for the possibility of suspending consideration of a resignation request if a disciplinary complaint may result in the judge’s dismissal. The keyword here is “possibility,” not “obligation.” And this is exactly what the HCJ has abused for years.

Who chose retirement instead of accountability?

Even in the presence of serious allegations, the HCJ has approved the retirement of judges, including:

• Oleksandr Kniaziuk, a judge of the Odesa Court of Appeal, who was repeatedly caught driving while allegedly intoxicated;

• Liudmyla Horiachkivska, a judge of the Uman City District Court — a figure in cases involving assistance to fraudsters, who was caught taking a bribe;

• Judges Nataliia Cherednichenko and Liana Kurylo, who issued unlawful decisions against participants of the Revolution of Dignity;

• Judges who effectively “rescued” drunk drivers from liability.

The scheme looks simple: as soon as a disciplinary complaint is filed or proceedings are opened, the judge submits a resignation request. In a number of cases, the HCJ does not wait for the outcome of the review and instead sends such judges into “honourable retirement” with lifelong financial maintenance.

Inconsistency and selectivity

The new composition of the HCJ has declared a change in approach, yet the practice remains inconsistent. In some cases, consideration of resignation requests is suspended; in others, serious violations are simply ignored.

Particularly questionable are decisions concerning judges who were supposed to undergo a qualification assessment as a disciplinary sanction, but never completed it. For example, in 2024, the HCJ allowed “Maidan judge” Yuliia Ivanina to retire despite the fact that she had not passed the “disciplinary” qualification assessment.

Even more telling is the case of judge Hanna Andriienko. Despite a submission from the High Qualification Commission of Judges recommending her dismissal due to non-compliance with the position, the HCJ first considered her request for honorary retirement and granted it. The HQCJ submission and integrity-related concerns were effectively ignored.

What needs to be done

Retirement cannot serve as a fallback option to evade accountability. If the state guarantees a judge lifelong status and substantial payments, this should concern only judges with an impeccable reputation. DEJURE insists on legislative amendments that would:

• oblige the HCJ to suspend consideration of a resignation request until disciplinary proceedings, qualification assessment, or review of an HQCJ submission for dismissal are completed;

• extend the time limit for considering resignation requests to at least six months, to prevent rubber-stamping decisions within 30 days without a genuine review.

Retirement should be a deliberate final decision taken after all cases and checks are completed, not a quick escape from disciplinary sanctions. Otherwise, the state will continue paying from the budget for judges who failed every integrity check.

More details can be found in the analytical paper “Problematic Aspects of Disciplinary Liability and Dismissal of Judges: Analytical Review and Recommendations.”