Editor’s Note: Every week Kyiv Post journalist Oleg Sukhov picks a winner and loser in Ukraine’s drive to transform itself into a rule-of-law, European-style democracy.
Reformer of the week – Larysa Golnyk
The High Qualification Commission of Judges on Oct. 26 blocked whistleblower judge Larysa Golnyk from applying for a job at the High Anti-Corruption Court.
She was blocked due to being reprimanded by the High Council of Justice for a Facebook post criticizing the authorities and for participating in a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada’s anti-corruption committee. However, she sees the move as revenge for her whistleblowing activities.
Golnyk, a judge of Poltava’s Oktryabrsky District Court, was also attacked and beaten by unknown men as she was leaving the court building in November 2017.
In 2015, Golnyk published video footage featuring then Poltava Mayor Oleksandr Mamai pressuring her to close a case against him and his former deputy Dmytro Trikhna unsuccessfully trying to bribe her in exchange for closing it. They deny the accusations of wrongdoing.
Golnyk was then suspended and said that Oleksandr Strukov, the chairman of the Oktiabrsky Court, was pressuring her and had even assaulted her, which Strukov also denies. Strukov, who is under criminal investigation for the incident, is still in his job.
In September, a Poltava court acquitted Trikhna, triggering accusations of political pressure on the judge. Mamai is merely a witness in the case and has faced no charges.
Civic activists on Nov. 1 also held a protest against the High Council of Justice’s Oct. 19 decision to fire Pechersk Court Judge Larysa Tsokol over two complaints over alleged legal violations filed in early 2017. They argue that the firing of Tsokol is revenge for her disloyalty to the authorities, including her decision to release ex-Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in December 2017.
Meanwhile, the High Qualification Commission has delayed the appointment of the six-member Public Council of International Experts or PCIE, a body of foreigners intended to help set up the anti-corruption court, ever since 12 candidates for the PCIE were nominated in mid-September and missed the Oct. 31 deadline for appointing them. The court’s creation will be impossible if the PCIE’s creation is derailed.
One of the obstacles is that the PCIE might be blocked by the High Qualification Commission from assessing the results of candidates’ practical examinations. Moreover, the High Qualification Commission has previously refused to publish such results, thus casting doubt on whether they were assessed objectively. Public Integrity Council member Vitaly Tytych argued that the PCIE has a right under the law to assess the results of practical examinations, and that such results should also be published according to the law.
The High Qualification Commission did not respond to a request for comment.
Anti-reformer of the week – Olga Stupak
Roman Maselko, a member of the Public Integrity Council, on Oct. 28 published an investigation into the assets of Olga Stupak, who was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court in November 2017.
The Public Integrity Council, the judiciary’s civil society watchdog, vetoed Stupak as a Supreme Court candidate, but the High Qualification Commission of Judges and the High Council of Justice ignored the veto. Stupak, who is being investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine over unlawful enrichment, and the High Qualification Commission did not respond to a request for comment.
During the Supreme Court competition, Stupak said that her husband used income from the sale of a Land Cruiser car and savings to buy a BMW X5 car produced in 2016. According to an Aug. 14 court ruling, Stupak’s claim is false: in fact her family sold the Land Cruiser more than a month after the purchase of the BMW X5.
Stupak also said that her 76-year old mother-in-law had used her business income to buy a Hr 1.8 million mansion. But the Aug. 14 ruling refutes her claim: in fact her mother-in-law took the money from the account of Stupak’s husband.
Moreover, Stupak violated the law by failing to disclose the house in her asset declaration before the Supreme Court competition, although she admitted during the competition that she had been living there, Maselko said.
In 2012 Stupak also received a 108 square meter government apartment free of charge. Her claim that she had not applied for the apartment also turned out to be false: Kyiv’s Dnipro District Administration confirmed that she had applied for it, according to a document posted by Maselko.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Oct. 16 canceled the High Qualification Commission’s decision to fire Petro Kovzel, a judge of the Kyiv District Administrative Court in May during qualification assessment (vetting). The court argued that the decision contained no motives.
The court ruling confirms that all of the High Qualification Commission’s decisions during the qualification assessment of judges and the Supreme Court competition contained no motives and were unlawful, Maselko argued. The move may also lead to many tainted judges being reinstated by courts.
During the Supreme Court competition, the commission assigned up to 210 points out of 1,000 for legal knowledge and practical tests to candidates and up to 790 points out of 1,000 points without giving any explicit reasons. The United States Agency for International Development has proposed increasing the percentage of objective criteria (legal knowledge and practical tests) in the methodology but the commission ignored the proposals.
The commission denied the accusations of wrongdoing during the competition.
