Court rejects TVi suit against appointment of Khoroshkovsky to High Council of Justice
The High Administrative Court has rejected the law suit brought by TVi asking the court to find the President’s decree of 31 May 2010 appointing Khoroshkovsky to the High Council of Justice unlawful. The ruling was passed on 12 August.
As reported here, TVi had cited Article 6 of the Law on the High Council of Justice. This article stipulates the qualifications needed which include: “a higher legal education and experience of work in the field of law of no less than ten years. The requirements of paragraph 1 of this Article do not apply to people who are members of the High Council of Justice on the basis of their position”.
TVi’s representative, Yury Krainyak, from the law firm Jurimex, analysed Valery Khoroshkovsky’s biography placed on the Verkhovna Rada website. “In it there is only one position which at least by definition could have some relation to work experience in the field of law: Professor of the Faculty of Financial Law of the Tax Academy. This position was held by the third party for one year”. The lawyer considers that all other positions were administrative and not requiring any law education.
He is also of the opinion that work experience in the field of law can only be gained having a law education and working according to ones profession. Other members of the High Council of Justice were previously judges, prosecutors, bar lawyers and lecturers. Only the Minister of Justice does not have such experience, but is a member of the Council by virtue of his ministerial post.
The representative of the Security Service [SBU] asserted the opposite. He pointed out that Khoroshkovsky’s work had been directly linked with the field of law in his positions as Assistant to the Prime Minister (1997-1998); National Deputy (1998-2002); Deputy Head of the President’s Administration (for the second half of 2002); the Minister on the Economic on Issues of European Integration (2002-2004); First Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council (2006-2007); Head of the State Customs and Excise Service (2007-2009); the First Deputy Head of the SBU (from January 2009 to March 2010) and Head of the SBU from March this year.
Mr Krainyak said that no evidence of direct work in the field of law had been provided.
During the court debate, he repeated TVi’s objections and stated: “We have seen the documents provided to the court by the respondent and according to them, experience of work in the field of law is not confirmed either by the material of the case, or by the reporting note which, as we see, was not registered in the President’s Administration. We therefore consider that no evidence has been given refuting our position. We consider that experience of work in the field of law can be obtained only in jobs linked with the need for a person to have a law education. And a person gains it only by working in the profession which he has acquired”.
After the debate, a court ruling was issued rejecting the law suit. The Presiding Judge Svitlana Holovchuk said that the text with the full resolution would appear in 5 days. This ruling is final and not subject to appeal.