The disappearance of judge Kyrylo Harnyk’s case: the High Council of Justice avoids referring the matter to the Prosecutor General
The High Council of Justice (HCJ) has effectively confirmed the special status of two of the country’s most scandal-ridden courts — the liquidated District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK) and the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv. Although the versions explaining the disappearance of the case materials concerning judge Kyrylo Harnyk contradict one another and undermine the authority of justice, the HCJ is avoiding a referral to the Office of the Prosecutor General to register criminal proceedings.
The case concerns an administrative offence in which DACK judge Kyrylo Harnyk refused to undergo a sobriety test while driving a car. The case was being considered by the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv. However, during the proceedings, the case materials disappeared. This made it impossible to complete the proceedings and to hold the judge administratively liable.
At its meeting on 8 December, the HCJ considered whether to refer the matter to the Office of the Prosecutor General, as there are two contradictory versions of how the materials disappeared — one from the police and one from the administrative staff of the Pechersk District Court.
- Natalia Linnik, Head of the Administrative Office of the Pechersk District Court, questioned as a witness at a meeting of the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ, stated that she personally handed over the case materials to a police officer who allegedly signed the cover letter and received other cases as well. At the same time, she was unable to name the specific individual to whom the materials were handed over, and there is no documentary confirmation of the transfer, nor a cover letter, nor any other evidence. Moreover, the Pechersk District Court officially reported that no other cases were transferred to the police on that day.
- The police, for their part, claim that the case materials were sent to them by post. However, upon opening the envelope, it was found to be empty, and the police prepared an official report to that effect.
The head of a court’s administrative office plays a key role in the court’s document workflow. Previously, journalists from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty had already identified anomalies in the automated case-assignment system in cases involving Andrii Portnov that were heard by the Pechersk Court.
Thus, there are two versions of the events, and only law enforcement authorities can establish the truth:
- For this reason, HCJ member Roman Maselko proposed referring the matter to the Office of the Prosecutor General in order to register criminal proceedings regarding the possible intentional destruction of case materials and the provision of false testimony by a witness (Articles 357 and 384 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
- HCJ members Serhii Burlakov and Oleksandr Sasevych opposed this proposal. They suggested postponing the referral to the Prosecutor General’s Office until the HCJ, sitting in its full composition, completes the disciplinary proceedings against Kyrylo Harnyk.
- Roman Maselko emphasised that the HCJ has repeatedly referred matters to law-enforcement authorities even before disciplinary proceedings were completed. In addition, criminal offences are subject to statutes of limitation, and delays create the risk that these limitation periods will expire, allowing those responsible to evade liability. Nevertheless, the majority of HCJ members supported the position to postpone the referral to the Office of the Prosecutor General.
The disappearance of the case materials effectively worked in judge Harnyk’s favour — it allowed him to avoid administrative liability and possibly even dismissal. The situation bears all the hallmarks of a system of mutual cover-ups: the Pechersk District Court effectively “shielded” the DACK judge, while the High Council of Justice, by avoiding the initiation of criminal proceedings, confirmed the de facto immunity of two scandal-ridden courts — the DACK and the Pechersk District Court.
In almost two years since the Council’s disciplinary function was restored, only three out of more than fifty judges of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv have been dismissed, even though the cases involving OASK judges are high-profile and classified as priority.
For more details on Kyrylo Harnyk and his case in the Pechersk Court, see our YouTube video:
