In Kyiv, three judges avoided disciplinary responsibility for handling a case that was in court for over 10 years
The Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice, after reviewing the disciplinary case, refused to bring the judges of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv Oksana Lytvyn, Pavlo Slobodyanyuk, and Vitalii Tsyktich to disciplinary responsibility and terminated the disciplinary proceedings.
Circumstances of the case
The grounds for opening the case were disciplinary complaints from the victims (Solovyov O.V., Polubinsky V.R., Bezuhlenko A.I., Nosenko M.H., Dorosh O.S., Krytska D.M., Buchma T.Ya., Tsyhanenko O.A.). The complainants pointed to the prolonged investigation and consideration of a 2012 criminal case under Part 4 of Article 190 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (fraud). The first-instance court sentenced the accused to nine years of imprisonment with confiscation of property, and civil claims were satisfied for a total amount of over 15 million UAH. In 2013, the Kyiv Court of Appeal overturned the verdict and returned the case for additional investigation.
After the materials were resubmitted, the case remained under the jurisdiction of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv for over ten years. On April 24, 2023, a panel consisting of presiding judge Oksana Lytvyn (also referred to as Holub O.A. in the materials), judges Pavlo Slobodyanyuk, and Vitalii Tsyktich released the accused from criminal liability due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and left the civil claims without consideration.
The complainants argued that numerous changes in the composition of the panel, postponements of hearings, improper summoning of victims, and delays in providing a copy of the ruling (which they were able to review only on May 8, 2023, after the deadline for appeal had passed) indicated unjustified delays in the case review and possible collusion with the defense side.
Based on the results of a preliminary check, disciplinary inspector of the High Council of Justice Oleg Ilnytsky concluded the possible presence of disciplinary offenses under paragraph 2 of part one of Article 106 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges" (unjustified delay in case review, delay in drafting a reasoned decision, untimely entry of the decision into the Unified State Register of Court Decisions). On this basis, the Second Disciplinary Chamber opened a disciplinary case.
Decision of the Disciplinary Body
During the substantive review, inspector Oleg Ilnytsky established the absence of disciplinary offense elements. The case materials contained no evidence of intentional actions by the judges. The Second Disciplinary Chamber agreed with this conclusion and refused to bring the judges to disciplinary responsibility, terminating the proceedings. The complainants were not granted permission to appeal this decision.
The restriction of complainants' right to appeal decisions of disciplinary chambers has repeatedly been a subject of discussion. As previously reported by the "Judicial and Legal Newspaper", a problem has arisen in the practice of the High Council of Justice that may affect the balance between disciplinary responsibility and a judge’s right to defense.
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.
