Late Declaration Does Not Tarnish the Title of Prosecutor: HCJ Reviewed the Disciplinary Case of Oleksandr Prodan
The High Council of Justice partially annulled the decision of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors dated December 3, 2025, regarding Oleksandr Prodan, prosecutor of the Tyachiv District Prosecutor's Office of Zakarpattia Region.
The HCJ upheld the conclusion that there were no grounds to qualify the offense under paragraph 5 of part 1 of article 43 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office" (actions that tarnish the title of prosecutor) and annulled the corresponding part of the commission's decision. At the same time, the decision in other parts was left unchanged. The decision was supported by 12 members of the HRJ, with 7 against.
Case Circumstances
On August 1, 2025, the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors received a disciplinary complaint from the acting head of the General Inspectorate of the Office of the Prosecutor General. The complaint stated that prosecutor Oleksandr Prodan violated legal requirements by submitting his integrity declaration late — only on May 1, 2025, instead of the established deadline of March 31.
The commission established that in the late declaration, the prosecutor provided inaccurate information regarding the absence of actions that could tarnish the title of prosecutor. The reasons for the delay (participation in the selection for a judge position, official workload, and "forgetfulness") were deemed unexcused by the commission.
What the QDCP Decided
On December 3, 2025, the commission held Oleksandr Prodan disciplinarily liable and imposed a reprimand on him. The commission qualified his actions under paragraph 5 of part 1 of article 43 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office" — as committing actions that tarnish the title of prosecutor and may raise doubts about his objectivity, impartiality, independence, honesty, and incorruptibility of the prosecutor's office.
HCJ Decision
The High Council of Justice, after reviewing the case, concluded that the late submission of the integrity declaration by itself is not grounds for disciplinary liability under paragraph 5 of part 1 of article 43 of the Law "On the Prosecutor's Office." Such a violation does not contain sufficient negative moral and ethical connotation to be qualified as an action that tarnishes the title of prosecutor.
At the same time, the HCJ upheld the commission's conclusion regarding other aspects of the case.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
