Disciplinary sanction applied to Kyiv judge Vyacheslav Pidpalyy for exceeding authority in a high-profile case
The Third Disciplinary Panel of the High Council of Justice reviewed the disciplinary case concerning judge Vyacheslav Pidpalyy of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv and judges of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, Serhiy Bodnar, Ihor Panayid, and Viktor Pankulich.
The proceedings were initiated based on a disciplinary complaint from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, as well as complaints from Oleksandr Faier, lawyer Inna Tetska on behalf of Dmytro Zhuk, and lawyers Elvira Lazarenko and Oleksiy Sutkevych on behalf of Denys Maltsev.
Essence of the claims
The grounds for the complaints were the actions of the judges during the consideration of materials in a criminal proceeding opened in 2016 against former officials of the National Bank of Ukraine.
The complainants argued that Vyacheslav Pidpaly, when reviewing a complaint about the inaction of the Prosecutor General, exceeded his authority, violated jurisdiction rules, and without proper examination of the materials, obliged the Prosecutor General to consider the petition and cancel certain procedural decisions.
At the same time, claims were made against the judges of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court regarding the consideration of appeals against the ruling of the investigating judge. The complainants pointed to violations of institutional jurisdiction rules, exceeding authority, restricting access to justice, and procedural rights of participants in the proceedings.
The judges denied any disciplinary offenses, stating that they acted in accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code. In particular, Vyacheslav Pidpaly emphasized that the complaint was under the jurisdiction of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv, and his conclusions were based on the practice of the Supreme Court.
The judges of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court also stated that they acted exclusively within their procedural powers.
Decision of the Disciplinary Panel
The Third Disciplinary Panel of the High Council of Justice concluded that Vyacheslav Pidpaly committed a disciplinary offense and applied a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand with deprivation of the right to receive salary supplements for one month.
Regarding judges Serhiy Bodnar, Ihor Panayid, and Viktor Pankulich of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, the disciplinary proceedings were terminated, and their disciplinary liability was denied.
As previously reported by "Judicial and Legal Newspaper", the High Council of Justice very rarely holds judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court disciplinarily accountable. In the last five years, only four cases have been recorded where a representative of the High Anti-Corruption Court was held disciplinarily responsible, which again raises the issue of balancing guarantees of judicial independence and disciplinary responsibility for interpretation and application of procedural norms.
The complainants were granted permission to appeal this decision.
Following the review, the Third Disciplinary Panel of the High Council of Justice concluded that there were signs of a disciplinary offense in the actions of judge Vyacheslav Pidpalyy. The panel held him disciplinarily liable and applied a reprimand with deprivation of the right to receive salary supplements for one month.
Regarding judges Serhiy Bodnar, Ihor Panayid, and Viktor Pankulich of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, disciplinary liability was denied, and the disciplinary proceedings against them were terminated.
The complainants were granted permission to appeal the decision.
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 informed about the most important events.
