Judges are outlaws

Over the past three years, if public attention has been focused on the courts, it has been much less frequent than in pre-war times.

The spectacular and eloquent case of the former head of the Supreme Court V. Knyazev attracted attention, and then everything returned to normal life. The war affected the everyday life of the judicial community somewhat differently than it did others, but, of course, it did not spare it - the servants of Themis have their own stories of heroism and betrayal, epics with, so to speak, the SZCh, their own “Mukachevo cauldrons.”

In conditions of prolonged paralysis of the High Council of Justice and inactivity of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, neglected personnel shortages and the influence of other objective and subjective factors, an interesting trend remains unnoticed. We are talking about an increase in the number of judges who, for completely man-made reasons, occupy their positions and administer justice... illegally. That is, we are talking about judges who are seconded from “their” court to another and whose assignment period established by law has long expired.

According to Part 2 of Article 55 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judicial System and Status of Judges,” a judge’s assignment to another court of the same level and specialization is carried out for a period determined by the High Council of Justice. This period cannot exceed a year.

If the circumstances that were the basis for the judge’s business trip continue to exist, at the request of the chairman of the court to which the judge is sent, the High Council of Justice extends the period of the business trip, but not more than for one year. Of course, if the judge himself doesn’t mind.

That is, the total duration of the business trip cannot exceed two years. A judge whose assignment period has ended returns to work at the court from which he was assigned.

On March 15, 2022, by Law of Ukraine No. 2128-IX, the final and transitional provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judicial System and Status of Judges” were supplemented by paragraph 56. According to it, during the period of a state of emergency or martial law and within 30 days after the day of its cancellation (termination) and in the absence of the authorized composition of the High Council of Justice, the Chairman of the Supreme Court makes a decision on the secondment of the judge to another court of the appropriate level and specialization and on early termination this business trip.

In this case, the provisions of paragraph two of part two of Art. 55 of this Law regarding the deadline for a judge’s business trip do not apply.

In connection with such a forced innovation, the editors turned to the competent institutions with a question about the implementation of these provisions of the law.

How many judges were sent by decision of the Chairman of the Supreme Court (separately - by decision of the Chairman of the Supreme Court V. Knyazev) to another court of the same level and specialization.

How many judges were sent from one local court to another, from one appellate court to another.

Did the Supreme Court make a decision to extend the period of assignment of judges who were sent from one court to another by the decision of the Chairman of the Supreme Court (separately - by the decision of the Chairman of the Supreme Court V. Knyazev).

If she did, then in relation to how many judges she made such a decision and for how long their assignment was extended.

Do currently seconded judges continue to carry out legal proceedings in those courts to which they were “seconded”, in the absence of a decision of the Supreme Court on them to extend the period of assignment.

Did the judges who were seconded to other courts return to work in the court from which they were seconded due to the end of the secondment or the decision of the Supreme Court to end the assignment early? If so, how many judges returned to work in the court from which they were sent, and on what grounds.

The staff of the Supreme Court considered the answer to the above questions for a very long time, beyond the period established by law. Finally, a response signed by the deputy staff arrived. It follows from this that the Armed Forces actually know little. And it looks like it's not very interesting.

“In the period from February 24, 2022 until the restoration of the authorized composition of the High Council of Justice, a decision was made to send 462 judges. The total number of seconded judges of local courts is 394. The total number of seconded judges of appeal courts is 68.

We provide the requested information, which is in the possession of the Supreme Court, but the High Council of Justice has comprehensive information on the issues raised.

The other information you requested from the Supreme Court is not reflected or documented by any means or on any media.”

That is, the Supreme Court does not have any information on the issues raised, except for the number of seconded judges! Surprisingly, but a recorded fact.

At the same time, the High Council of Justice, without a doubt, has “exhaustive information,” but it apparently has an inexhaustible amount of such information, and they have been preparing a response to the request since September last year, violating the law.

Addressing the overly busy VSP and VKKS, we suggest that you still answer the questions sent. And at the same time think about how many judges are now producing decisions that should be overturned solely because they were not made by a court established by law.