Legislator Burlakov, or How to Block a Hearing by Citing Imaginary Provisions of the HCJ Law
On January 22, the Second Disciplinary Chamber (SDC) of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) failed to review a single case from its agenda. The session was blocked by a proposal from HCJ member Serhii Burlakov, who was supported by Serhii Salikhov and Oleksii Melnyk.
For the second time in two weeks, the Burlakov-Salikhov duo has distorted the law to shield judges of low integrity from accountability. It seems that HCJ members have no issue inventing new provisions of the Law on the High Council of Justice, effectively placing themselves above the Verkhovna Rada.
This time, Burlakov proposed halting the SDC session, arguing that, according to the Law on the HCJ, a majority of the chamber’s voting members in disciplinary cases must be judges. At the session, out of four chamber members present, only Burlakov and Salikhov were judges. Moreover, on that day, both were serving only as rapporteurs in cases, meaning they were ineligible to vote on decisions. As a result, the number of HCJ judge-members eligible to vote was a minority. According to Burlakov, this was sufficient grounds to block the hearing. Notably, similar circumstances in the past had never been an issue for Burlakov and Salikhov.
Additionally, Burlakov failed to specify which provision of the Law on the HCJ he was citing. The law does not state that a chamber cannot review a case if judge-members of the HCJ constitute a minority in the vote. The only relevant provision (Part 4, Article 26) requires that during the formation of a disciplinary chamber, at least half or a significant portion of its members be judges. This requirement had already been met, as three out of five members of the SDC are judges.
It appears that Burlakov is fabricating legal provisions to influence the handling of cases that serve his interests. Meanwhile, Salikhov and Melnyk, who supported his proposal, either lack knowledge of the relevant law — an unacceptable deficiency for HCJ members — or are complicit in Burlakov’s legislative manipulations. If such tactics continue to be tolerated within the HCJ, they will completely erode public trust in the institution.
