Documenting war crimes in Ukraine.
The Tribunal for Putin (T4P) global initiative was set up in response to the all-out war launched by Russia against Ukraine in February 2022.

Similar articles

Notorious Kyiv judge fully reinstated despite high-profile judicial corruption scandalUkraine High Council of Justice refuses to suspend notorious judges under criminal investigationUkraine’s Human Rights Ombudswoman caught in mounting judicial corruption scandalDramatic exposure of corruption and rigged judgments in central Ukrainian court notorious for eyebrow-raising rulingsUkrainian anti-corruption journalists expose manipulation behind Kolomoisky & other notorious court rulingsWhistle-blower who exposed judicial reform farce in Ukraine dismissedBizarre court rulings point to mounting judicial rot in Ukraine227 judges who persecuted Maidan activists remain in their postsZelensky urged to veto law that puts Ukraine on track for more damning European Court judgments Russia sentences three Ukrainian Jehovah’s Witnesses to six years for "threatening state security" by discussing the Bible Russian occupation means 14-year sentences for being Ukrainian and refusing to ‘confess’ to insane charges New armed searches and arrests in Russian-occupied Crimea for reading the Bible Russian prisoners offered big money and ‘amnesty’ to kill for Russia in Ukraine “Do You Still Want This War?” Anti-War Activities in Russia, 3-9 July 2022Crimean Tatar sentenced to 19 years on "sheer fantasy" charges Russia copy-pastes first attack on Crimean Tatar activists after 4 years for new 13-year sentences After violently seizing Crimea, Russia accuses peaceful Crimean Tatars of ‘terrorism’ for defending political prisoners Russian prosecutor demands 20-year sentence on ‘fantasy charges’ against Crimean Tatar political prisoner Monstrous sentences in Russia’s war against Crimean Tatar civic activists and their childrenSeven Jehovah’s Witnesses put on trial in Russian-occupied Crimea for studying the Bible

Ukraine to generously pay “judges” in Russian-controlled Donbas after shock Constitutional Court judgement

Halya Coynash

Ukraine’s Constitutional Court has issued a shock judgement overturning major parts of the 2016 judicial reforms.  Among other consequences, the judgement will make it all but impossible to stop paying judges who have failed (or refused to take) qualification assessment, as well as those judges who betrayed their oath by working as ‘judges’ for the Russian proxy ‘Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics’ [DPR, LPR]. The amounts of money involved are high, and in many cases, judges now eligible for substantial backpay payments were involved in handing down overtly unlawful sentences.

The judgement from 18 February 2020 was in response to a submission from the Supreme Court of Ukraine asking about the constitutionality of judicial reforms introduced in 2016.

These reforms had, first of all, dissolved the old Supreme Court, and created a new one, appointing a separate competition for this ‘new Supreme Court’.  The idea behind  these changes, the DeJure Foundation explains, was that the new procedure would make it possible to clear this highest judicial body from judges of questionable integrity.

However CCU has now revoked the 2016 dissolution of the Supreme Court.  This judgement is final, but it does not contain any instructions on the fate of both Supreme Courts.  This means, on the one hand, that there is broad legal scope for the decisions that MPs must now make in order to, as ordered by CCU, bring the Law on the Judicial System in accordance with Ukraine’s Constitution.  The other side of the coin is, however, that MPs could well come up with a solution which CCU later also finds to be unconstitutional.

Stepan Berko from DeJure explains that there are currently 12 judges in the Supreme Court who refused to retire back in 2016.  Now they will be able to begin working in the Supreme Court without needing to take part in any competition and must also be paid backpay for the last four years while they were not able to serve as judges.  If they are all transferred to the ‘new’ and, now, the one and only, Supreme Court, that will mean that there are 204 Supreme Court judges, which is more than the maximum number as stipulated by law (200).

While the above is very important, emotions have been particularly aroused over another part of the judgement. CCU also revoked a norm in the 2016 law cancelling the right to life remuneration in the case of judges who had not undergone judge re-attestation.  This means that the only judges who cannot now receive substantial monthly payments for life are those very few individuals who were actually dismissed. As Mykhailo Zhernakov, Head of DeJure, pointed out, many judges were spared dismissal, and allowed to simply “retire”.  They will presumably also be eligible to backpay for the time they were not paid.  So too will those who either chose not to go through the re-attestation procedure or who failed the procedure. 

A year ago, civic activists pointed out that 227 judges who had persecuted Maidan activists remained in their posts, and there have been numerous eyebrow-raising rulings reinstating even those judges, like Pavlo Vovk, head of the Kyiv District Court of Appeal, accused of serious judicial corruption.  There is certainly always a fine line between punishment for judicial independence (as is now being applied by the right-wing PiS government in neighbouring Poland), and measures to ensure that judges do not breach their oath.  Six months after the Revolution of Dignity, the promises to ensure an overhaul of a gravely compromised judicial system now seem even more empty.

There is, as mentioned, one other category of judges whom this judgement will affect. All of those judges who remained in occupied Donbas, and who are now serving the Russian-controlled and unrecognized ‘Donetsk and Luhansk people’s republics’ will now also be entitled to life-long salaries. These may well be the individuals involved in ‘sentencing’ Ukrainian prisoner of war, Bohdan Pantyushenko, 63-year-old academic and religious specialist Ihor Kozlovsky; journalists Stanislav Aseyev and Oleh Halaziuk, and very many others to huge terms of ‘imprisonment’. 


 Share this