Will the Supreme Court restore the judicial robe to Inna Otrosh, who blamed Ukraine for the occupation of Crimea?

On October 9 at 15:00, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court will consider the case of reinstating judge Inna Otrosh Jr., known for her statements blaming the Ukrainian authorities for the occupation of Crimea and for her refusal to explain the origins of her luxury real estate. We urge the public and the media to attend the hearing and closely follow its proceedings.

Why is this important?

If the Supreme Court reinstates Otrosh, it will give the green light to:

1. Those who seek to obtain a judge’s robe through influential relatives and connections without explaining the sources of their luxury property and wealth;
2. The “Usatyi judges” seeking to avoid qualification assessment. In 2024, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, through its decision in Judge Usatyi’s case, dramatically changed its own previous practice and jeopardised the assessment of 180 judges. The Public Integrity Council (PIC) had issued negative integrity conclusions regarding these judges, meaning the full composition of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) had to decide whether each judge met integrity criteria. However, the Grand Chamber’s ruling allowed these judges to avoid interviews with the full composition of the HQCJ. Inna Otrosh is among these judges. Even the European Commission has warned about the danger this decision poses to judicial reform.

What is known about Inna Otrosh Jr.?

At 26 years old, she was already a judge. This is how the career of Inna Otrosh began — in 2013, Viktor Yanukovych appointed her as a judge of the Commercial Court of Luhansk Region.

1. But she did not stay in Luhansk for long: just two weeks later, she requested a transfer to Kyiv. She received it at record speed, by a decree of Yanukovych, after only three months. To be transferred, a candidate must win a competition — but no competition was even announced.
2. During her interview with the HQCJ, Otrosh could not recall a single “competitor” she supposedly competed against for the position. Questions also arose about her professional experience: her employment record stated she worked as a postgraduate researcher “with interruption of production,” but this entry was made by a notary, not the university where she studied. The university confirmed that Otrosh had never been officially employed there.
3. Law enforcement took an interest as well. In a 2014 criminal case, the prosecutor’s office established that officials of the HQCJ had acted in Otrosh’s interests, tampering with the computer system to “boost” her scores. The investigation stalled, and the HQCJ failed to cooperate with prosecutors.

The explanation is simple — family connections. The judge’s mother, Inna Otrosh Sr., was then the head of the Pechersk District Court in Kyiv and a member of the High Council of Justice. After the Revolution of Dignity, she disappeared from Kyiv; according to media reports, she moved to occupied Crimea and took a position in a “court” there.

The family’s property history is also striking:

1. At just 21 years old, Otrosh Jr. had a 456 m² house under construction in Vyshenky village near Kyiv. Within a year, she was registered as the owner of two apartments in the capital. Later, her mother gifted her another — a 139 m² apartment in central Kyiv, in the same building where Andrii Portnov owned property.
2. During her 2024 interview with the HQCJ, Otrosh refused to provide explanations about the legality of her assets acquired before becoming a judge. This refusal became one of the reasons why the High Council of Justice dismissed her from the judiciary.

Moreover, after Russia’s armed aggression began in 2014, Otrosh Jr. regularly visited “relatives” in occupied Crimea and in Russia. During her HQCJ interview, she stated that the occupation of Crimea “was the fault of Ukrainian state authorities that failed to ensure border security in time.” She added that “there were no hostilities in Crimea, the state did not resist the Russian occupation, and therefore, as an ordinary citizen,” she could travel there for leisure.

The story of Inna Otrosh is telling: children of influential figures receive judicial posts “on demand,” while enormous wealth appears at a very young age. Will the Supreme Court’s decision show that Ukraine’s judicial system is capable of cleansing itself of such servants of Themis?