The High Council of Justice reviewed the case of Kyiv judge Mariya Sazonova delaying drunk driving cases
The High Council of Justice, following the review of the complaint, completely annulled the decision of the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ dated March 25, 2026, regarding the disciplinary liability of Mariya Sazonova, judge of the Dnipro District Court of Kyiv, and closed the disciplinary proceedings. The decision was made with 9 votes "for" and 4 "against".
Circumstances of the disciplinary case
The complainant claimed that Judge Mariya Sazonova delayed the consideration of administrative offense cases, in particular those provided for by Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (driving a vehicle under the influence), during 2018–2020. According to the analysis of the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, this led to offenders avoiding responsibility due to the expiration of time limits.
The Third Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ qualified the judge's actions as failure to take measures to consider the case within the time limits established by law (paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 106 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges"). The Disciplinary Chamber pointed to a low level of court organization, negligent use of procedural powers, and violation of reasonable time limits in the consideration of 18 cases, which jeopardized the achievement of administrative responsibility goals. As a result, some individuals avoided the penalties prescribed by law. The judge was subjected to a disciplinary sanction in the form of a warning.
Arguments of the parties in the HCJ
During the complaint review, representatives of Judge Sazonova denied the existence of systemic negligence. It was noted that out of 366 cases, 93% were considered within the established time limits. Violations of deadlines in specific cases were explained by objective reasons beyond the judge's control (defense motions, complexity of evidence in cases under Article 130 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, significant workload, etc.).
The lawyer and the judge emphasized the "criminal" standard of proof of guilt in such cases (beyond reasonable doubt), referred to the practice of the Supreme Court, constitutional guarantees (Article 62 of the Constitution), and the fact that the state itself does not always comply with deadlines. They also pointed to the heavy workload on the judge (60% above average) and the absence of exemption from consideration of these categories of cases.
The disciplinary inspector insisted on the validity of the chamber's decision, referring to the practice of the HCJ and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in similar cases (judges Haiev, Boiko, Chernov, etc.). It was noted that in some cases, hearings were scheduled after the expiration of the time limit, and decisions to close proceedings were made on non-rehabilitating grounds, which did not ensure the achievement of administrative proceedings goals.
Decision of the High Council of Justice
The High Council of Justice disagreed with the conclusions of the Third Disciplinary Chamber and fully annulled its decision. The disciplinary proceedings against the judge were closed.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our pages on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
