Pre-emptive move: why Pavlo Vovk turned to the Constitutional Court ahead of the Supreme Court’s ruling

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine has begun considering a complaint filed by Pavlo Vovk, the former head of the liquidated District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK). The complaint challenges a legal provision that prohibits the transfer of judges from courts that have been liquidated or reorganised to other courts without competitive selection and without undergoing the qualification assessment.

In essence, this is an attempt by Vovk to secure a transfer from the liquidated DACK to a comparable court without any integrity or professional vetting—provided that the Supreme Court reinstates him to judicial status. This would allow him, in the near term, to start issuing judgments in the name of Ukraine.

On 21 January 2026, the First Senate of the Constitutional Court moved the case into the closed deliberation phase. A decision may be issued in the near future, and its consequences could be decisive for the entire judiciary.

What is the case about?

Pavlo Vovk is the former head of the DACK, a court that has become a symbol of political influence, judicial misconduct, and rulings that undermined judicial reform.

In 2018–2019, the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) included Vovk in the judicial qualification assessment process. However, he and around 30 other DACK judges coordinated their non-appearance at the exam, citing temporary incapacity. As a result, Vovk never completed the assessment.

In 2022, DACK was liquidated, and in 2025, Pavlo Vovk was dismissed from office following disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of complaints from civil society. The grounds included the disruption of a hearing of the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice through false bomb threats, as well as attempts to unlawfully influence the qualification assessment process and members of the HQCJ.

Vovk is challenging his dismissal before the Supreme Court, arguing in particular that materials from covert investigative actions, so-called “NABU tapes” recorded in his office, cannot be used in disciplinary proceedings.

What exactly is Vovk challenging before the Constitutional Court?

In parallel, Vovk filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court seeking to have paragraph 61 of Section XII of the Law of Ukraine On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges No. 1402-VIII declared unconstitutional.

The contested provision stipulates that when a court is liquidated or reorganised, a judge may be transferred to another court of the same or lower level without a competition only after passing a qualification assessment. This is a key safeguard designed to ensure that judges whose professional competence and integrity have not been confirmed do not return to the judiciary.

Vovk, however, claims that his right to be transferred arose automatically at the moment DACK was liquidated, and that the requirement to undergo qualification assessment unlawfully restricts his right to work.

If the Constitutional Court endorses this position, it would set a dangerous precedent. Judges who failed to complete—or deliberately avoided—qualification assessment, including those facing serious integrity concerns, would be able to transfer freely to other courts following the liquidation or reorganisation of their courts.

***

At present, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court is considering Pavlo Vovk’s appeal against his dismissal. The next hearing is scheduled for 29 January 2026.

Established Supreme Court practice allows the use of materials from criminal proceedings, including covert investigative actions, in disciplinary cases against judges. If the Supreme Court departs from this position in Vovk’s favour, the consequences could be far-reaching: other judges implicated in high-profile corruption cases—where such evidence was used in disciplinary proceedings—could also return to the judiciary.

Even if Vovk prevails before the Supreme Court, he would not be able to resume judicial functions immediately, as his court (the DACK) has been liquidated. This is why he is seeking a transfer to another court. For now, that is impossible because he has not passed the qualification assessment. Against this backdrop, his appeal to the Constitutional Court appears to be an attempt to remove the final barrier to returning to the administration of justice.

If the Constitutional Court sides with Pavlo Vovk and the Supreme Court overturns his dismissal, this would completely undermine trust in the judiciary and in the very idea of judicial accountability.