The criminal case was under consideration for almost six years: The Grand Chamber upheld the reprimand of the judge

The judge of the Dobroslav District Court of the Odessa region failed to appeal the disciplinary sanction imposed by the High Council of Justice. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the HCJ to hold the judge disciplinarily liable for unjustified delay in the consideration of the criminal proceedings and failure to take measures to review the petition to lift the property seizure within the legally established timeframe.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that the HCJ acted within its powers, and the sanction applied to the judge in the form of a reprimand with deprivation of the right to receive salary supplements for one month is proportionate to the committed disciplinary offense.

Circumstances of case №990/44/26

The basis for the disciplinary proceedings was the judge's conduct during the consideration of a criminal case concerning two defendants accused of illegal seizure of a vehicle and use of forged documents.

The indictment was submitted to the court in July 2020. However, the preparatory proceedings were completed only in November 2023, more than three years after the case was opened. At the time of the HCJ Disciplinary Chamber's decision, the total duration of the criminal proceedings in the court of first instance exceeded five years.

The HCJ found that court sessions were repeatedly scheduled with long intervals. In some cases, breaks between sessions exceeded two or even three months, with one lasting 176 days. A significant portion of the sessions was effectively limited to checking the attendance of participants and postponing the hearing to another date.

The disciplinary body also noted that the judge never applied procedural mechanisms to ensure the defendants' attendance in court, although their absence repeatedly caused delays in the case. Additionally, the court postponed hearings three times due to the absence of the victim, although their absence did not itself prevent the continuation of the proceedings.

The HCJ also took into account that during the case consideration, the statute of limitations for criminal liability expired for one of the criminal offenses charged against the defendant.

Almost three years without consideration of the petition

A separate episode of the disciplinary case was the consideration of the victim's petition to lift the seizure of the vehicle.

According to Article 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, such a petition must be considered no later than three days after its receipt by the court. However, as established by the HCJ, a properly re-submitted petition filed in December 2022 remained unconsidered for over 960 days. Only in September 2025 did the judge issue a ruling denying the petition.

The disciplinary body concluded that no objective circumstances preventing consideration of this issue within the legally established three-day period were found.

Judge's position

The judge insisted that the disciplinary proceedings were effectively interference in the administration of justice. She referred to excessive court workload, staff shortages, absence of parties to the process, and other circumstances which, in her opinion, were beyond her personal control. The judge also indicated that the HCJ effectively evaluated her procedural decisions.

Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court: disciplinary liability does not mean interference in justice

The Grand Chamber rejected these arguments.

The court emphasized that the subject of disciplinary assessment was not the legality or validity of judicial decisions in the criminal proceedings. The review concerned exclusively the judge's compliance with procedural duties regarding ensuring reasonable timeframes for case consideration and timely resolution of procedural issues. Therefore, the claim of interference in the administration of justice was deemed unfounded by the Grand Chamber.

The Grand Chamber agreed with the HCJ's conclusions that the criminal case was not particularly complex, and its lengthy consideration was caused not only by the behavior of the participants but also by the actions and inactions of the judge. The court also agreed that the judge did not take appropriate measures to ensure the defendants' attendance and failed to consider the petition to lift the property seizure within the legally established timeframe without valid reasons.

What the Grand Chamber decided

The Grand Chamber recognized the qualification of the judge's actions as a disciplinary offense under paragraph 2 of part one of Article 106 of the Law "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges" — unjustified delay in case consideration and failure to take measures to review the petition within the legally established period.

The court also noted that the significant workload was considered by the disciplinary body as a mitigating circumstance. At the same time, this circumstance does not refute the established facts of unjustified delay in case consideration and failure to take measures to review the petition within the legally established timeframe.

In conclusion, the Grand Chamber dismissed the judge's complaint, and the HCJ's decision on reprimand and deprivation of the right to receive salary supplements for one month remained unchanged. The ruling is final and not subject to appeal.

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 Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.