Is the SBI Hiding Motion to Search the HQCJ Premises?
Members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) have appealed to the High Council of Justice (HCJ) due to pressure from the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI). In March 2025, the SBI conducted searches at the HQCJ premises and at the home of Oleksii Omelian, the Commission’s Deputy Chair. Subsequently, the Bureau began launching numerous criminal proceedings against other Commission members, coinciding with HQCJ’s move to assess judges from the Pecherskyi District Court and the District Administrative Court of Kyiv.
Two months have passed since the SBI raids. On May 20, the HCJ held a hearing with HQCJ Chair Andrii Pasichnyk, SBI investigators Serhii Katsev and Andrii Klyzhko to assess the legitimacy of the Bureau’s actions. The SBI justified the search by claiming that the HQCJ had not provided the qualification assessment documents requested under a judge’s ruling.
However, the grounds for these searches are questionable. Under Ukrainian law, searches may only be conducted if access to items or documents cannot be obtained voluntarily. During the HCJ hearing, the following facts emerged:
-
On December 31, 2024, SBI investigators requested the needed documents and received a phone response from Omelian confirming they would be provided.
-
For two months following that, investigators made no further attempts to obtain the documents until they showed up for the raid in March.
-
Investigator Katsev admitted during the hearing that HQCJ did not refuse to comply with the court order and did not obstruct its implementation.
The SBI’s rationale for the search should be detailed in the motion granted by a judge of the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv. However, it appears that the Bureau is withholding this document from the HCJ, potentially to obscure the lack of justification for the raid. HCJ member Roman Maselko submitted a request to the SBI, specifically asking for a copy of the search motion. Investigator Katsev responded with a vague reply and, during the hearing, cited “pre-trial secrecy” as a reason for not sharing the document. This left HCJ members unable to obtain clear answers to their questions. Throughout the hearing, SBI representatives frequently evaded direct answers, merely insisting that they acted lawfully.
In addition, HQCJ Chair Pasichnyk was questioned about judge Oksana Tsarevych and inquiries into her former husband. He clarified that requesting information about a judge’s relatives, partners, or ex-partners is standard procedure used by Commission members to assess integrity. Therefore, the inquiry into Tsarevych’s ex-husband was not an exception. Notably, the SBI reacted to Tsarevych’s complaint just before her interview with the HQCJ. Initiating criminal proceedings against a Commission member for sending such requests undermines not only the evaluation process but also the work of the HCJ and the Public Integrity Council. The SBI’s actions could deter members of these bodies from making similar integrity-related inquiries in the future.
The HCJ hearing concluded with a recess. The central question now is whether the HCJ will take the side of the HQCJ and acknowledge the SBI’s interference. We will continue monitoring developments.
