Zero accountability for false asset declarations: Olha Stupak returns to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court

Olha Stupak has once again joined the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court — a judge who passed the competition to this body despite false statements in her asset declarations.

1. In 2017, Stupak was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court. This appointment went ahead despite serious doubts about the consistency of her assets with her official income and the misleading explanations she provided to the High Qualification Commission of Judges. At the time, members of the Public Integrity Council filed complaints with NABU, NACP, and the High Council of Justice regarding false statements during the competition, violations of asset declaration rules, and discrepancies between her wealth and declared income.
2. NABU conducted an investigation and confirmed the findings identified by the Public Integrity Council. However, criminal proceedings were closed after the Constitutional Court abolished liability for illicit enrichment and false asset declarations.
3. The unreformed High Council of Justice failed to hold Stupak accountable, and she was later shielded by her colleagues in the Supreme Court. Even the newly reconstituted HCJ, despite establishing inaccuracies in her integrity declarations, imposed no sanctions — claiming the errors were unintentional. NABU’s materials indicated otherwise.
4. Among the established facts were an undeclared house near Kyiv in 2015–2016, where the judge lived but which was formally registered under her mother-in-law. Stupak also provided misleading explanations regarding the sources of funds used to purchase this house, a BMW X5 worth over UAH 1.4 million, and the removal of an apartment from the category of official housing.

Stupak’s return to the Grand Chamber has clear negative practical implications. It adds another vote in favour of Pavlo Vovk, the former head of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv, who is currently attempting to be reinstated through the Supreme Court.

Stupak has previously opposed the use of materials from covert investigative actions (such as surveillance, wiretapping, financial transaction records, and mobile traffic data) in disciplinary proceedings — precisely the type of evidence that exposed her own misconduct. Now, with an evident conflict of interest, she is in a position to support Pavlo Vovk, who was also dismissed based on NABU materials.

Two conclusions are obvious. First, the current mechanism of integrity declarations is ineffective: judges can submit false information without consequences — not a single judge has been dismissed on this basis. Second, the Supreme Court, which was not cleansed after the Kniazev corruption scandal, continues to appoint highly questionable figures to the Grand Chamber.

There is only one viable solution: to strengthen the mechanism for verifying integrity declarations by involving international experts, and to apply this mechanism to Supreme Court judges, including Olha Stupak.