Does the High Council of Justice Nullify the Presumption of Innocence While Awaiting the Suspension of Supreme Court Judges

The 2023 bribery case received continuation only in May 2026. On May 19, NABU and SAP announced searches conducted within the corruption case in the Supreme Court. Although marked bills were found back then, official suspicions were only recently issued. During all this time, the suspects continued to shape law enforcement practice as members of the Supreme Court's Grand Chamber.

The High Anti-Corruption Court imposed preventive measures and set bail for three Supreme Court judges, with suspicions additionally based on testimonies of the former head provided in May 2026, as well as materials from covert investigative (search) actions (CISA).

Consistent Practice in 2026

To understand the logic guiding the Council on May 29, it is worth looking at the dynamics of similar prosecution motions. The current course of the HCJ gained momentum immediately after its full restoration. While in 2023 the HCJ dismissed only 6 judges for significant disciplinary offenses, in 2024 this number reached 31, and in 2025 — 30 judges.

In 2026, we see not only the maintenance of pace but also a change in approach. Previously, temporary suspension or dismissal of a judge on criminal grounds was perceived as an extraordinary measure requiring clear justification.

Today, the HCJ demonstrates consistency. Any motion from the Prosecutor General's Office is almost automatically granted, indicating a complete shift of the disciplinary body to the side of the prosecution in criminal cases.

Analysis of HCJ decisions this year shows almost one hundred percent loyalty to motions from the Prosecutor General's Office and SAP.

Case of Judge Pidbereznyy (February 2026): The HCJ granted the suspension motion despite defense objections regarding "extraprocedural pressure" and "assumptions instead of facts."

Case of Judge Posokhov (April 2026): The Council suspended the judge based on suspicion of incitement to bribery, again relying on CISA protocols and audio surveillance.

Case of Judge Maksymovych (March 2026): Suspension occurred on suspicion of a serious corruption crime, where the HCJ explicitly stated that at this stage it does not assess the sufficiency of evidence for establishing guilt but only checks the likelihood of involvement.

This trend confirms that the HCJ sides with the prosecution, viewing suspension as a preventive measure to strengthen public trust, even if guilt is not proven.

CISA Without a Court Verdict

The most controversial aspect is the use of covert investigative (search) action materials. HCJ members, notably Alla Kotelevets, promote the idea of "autonomy" of disciplinary responsibility, arguing that the Council should not wait for a court verdict in a criminal case.

The HCJ believes that the absence of a verdict does not limit its right to dismiss or suspend a judge if the actions fall under disciplinary offenses. The HCJ disciplinary body does not consider itself bound by the presumption of innocence in its classical criminal procedural sense. Moreover, the practice of Disciplinary Chambers in 2024–2025 clearly shows that the absence of a court verdict is not an obstacle to establishing violations of ethical standards and integrity requirements by a judge.

At the same time, legislation and the legal community point to risks of using "raw" investigative materials that have not undergone judicial verification. HCJ member Serhii Burlakov and former Ombudsman Valeriya Lutkovska emphasize that using CISA outside criminal proceedings violates Article 8 of the Convention and Article 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

However, the HCJ ignores these warnings, considering CISA results sufficient grounds to end a judge's career. The law allows suspension for no more than two months, but during court proceedings — until the verdict takes legal effect. In the case of Supreme Court judges, given the severity of the alleged offenses (Article 368 of the Criminal Code), the prosecution insists on extended terms. Meanwhile, the HCJ often overlooks procedural errors by prosecutors, such as submitting repeated motions if they differ slightly in content.

It is expected that today the HCJ will grant the motions regarding judges Yelenina, Zheleznyi, and Hryhorieva. The Council is unlikely to change its practice of "autonomy" from criminal proceedings, favoring the media effect of fighting corruption over adherence to fundamental legal guarantees. This will once again underline the role of the HCJ not as a shield of independence but as a body whose activities in suspension matters are synchronized with the interests of the prosecution.

Author: Volodymyr Pravo

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.