New strategy for shielding low-integrity judges: a recipe from Serhiy Burlakov

Tomorrow, on September 18, the High Council of Justice (HCJ), specifically Serhiy Burlakov, plans to dismiss the disciplinary case filed by DEJURE Foundation against former Supreme Court President Vsevolod Knyaziev. This case concerns an alleged almost $3 million bribe he accepted in May 2023. DEJURE reveals how this move may set a precedent for other controversial judges to follow suit.

You might wonder: isn’t Knyaziev already dismissed? Yes, he was dismissed on July 18 in response to another DEJURE Foundation complaint involving a significantly underpriced apartment lease. According to Kyiv’s Pechersk District Court, the former Supreme Court President rented a central Kyiv apartment of over 130 square meters for a mere 1,000 hryvnias, violating anti-corruption laws.

However, this type of dismissal leaves room for Kniaziev to potentially appeal his dismissal in the future if he decides to pursue reinstatement, either through the Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights. These bodies may not deem such grounds for dismissal as sufficiently serious.

If the HCJ had prioritized DEJURE’s complaint regarding the bribery allegation, backed by criminal case evidence, it would serve as a substantial basis to counter future appeals. Nevertheless, DEJURE’s complaint was gathering dust in the HCJ for over half a year. The case rapporteur, Serhiy Burlakov, has made numerous efforts to delay the process: missing deadlines, halting proceedings, citing a supposed lack of case materials, among other tactics. According to the law, the review period is set at 90 days from the date of case initiation. Additionally, the HCJ’s regulations require the rapporteur to prepare a conclusion and draft decision within 30 days from the case opening. This falls far short of the HCJ’s publicly stated commitment to establishing transparent and prioritized criteria for handling complaints, especially those of significant public interest.

Burlakov not only exceeded the legally mandated timeframe but did so by several months, suggesting a deliberate delay of a case that carries immense public interest due to the high-profile individuals involved. According to DEJURE, Burlakov periodically issued requests to various institutions about the case but did so irregularly and inconsistently, creating an impression of procedural activity without a clear, logical progression.

According to DEJURE, such actions hint at a possible scheme: prosecuting a judge for minor misconduct while stalling on a more severe accusation and eventually dismissing the latter once the minor case is resolved.

This fall, DEJURE expects decisions in disciplinary cases involving scandalous judges from the District Administrative Court of Kyiv, including Pavlo Vovk, Yevhen Ablov, and others. DEJURE hopes that the HCJ will prioritize cases of serious misconduct, preventing these judges from retaining their status, lifetime benefits, and avenues for further manipulation. Although the District Administrative Court of Kyiv judges no longer administrate justice, they continue to receive salaries funded by Ukrainian taxpayers.