The High Council of Justice reviewed the case of Kyiv prosecutor Oleh Bilous for late submission of the integrity declaration following the Supreme Court decision
The High Council of Justice considered the disciplinary case concerning Oleh Bilous, a prosecutor of the Pechersk District Prosecutor's Office in Kyiv, and decided to partially cancel the decision of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors dated August 6, 2024. In the new decision, the reasoning part is presented in a different wording, while other parts of the QDCP decision remain unchanged.
The decision was made with 12 votes "for" and 5 "against".
Circumstances of the case
The disciplinary proceeding was initiated based on a complaint from the acting head of the General Inspectorate of the Office of the Prosecutor General. The reason was Oleh Bilous's late submission of the prosecutor's integrity declaration for 2024 (submitted on April 8, while the deadline was March 31).
The QDCP qualified the prosecutor's actions as a disciplinary offense under paragraph 5 of part 1 of article 43 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office" (committing actions that tarnish the prosecutor's title and may raise doubts about his objectivity, impartiality, independence, honesty, and incorruptibility of the prosecution authorities) and imposed a reprimand as a sanction.
The High Council of Justice on November 26, 2024, left the QDCP decision unchanged.
Judicial decisions
Oleh Bilous appealed the decision in court. The Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, by decision dated October 7, 2025, satisfied the claim of lawyer Yuliia Ishchenko in the interest of the prosecutor. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court by ruling dated April 16, 2026, left this decision unchanged.
The Grand Chamber noted that the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office" does not contain a separate ground for disciplinary liability for late submission of the integrity declaration. The qualification of such a violation under paragraph 5 of part 1 of article 43 of the Law was recognized as erroneous.
Decision of the High Council of Justice
After reconsideration, the High Council of Justice partially satisfied the complaint by changing the qualification of the offense. Member of the HCJ Moroz expressed the intention to write a separate opinion.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, our page on Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.
