For years, citizens of Russia have made and are making decisions “in the name of Ukraine,” competitions and qualification assessments are being held.
An investigation by journalists about the Russian passport of the former chairman of the Cassation Economic Court of the Supreme Court (CCC Supreme Court) Bogdan Lvov caused a significant public outcry. But not Lvov alone. Later, “Schemes” found the passport of the aggressor country from judge Lyudmila Arestova and from ex-judge of the Supreme Court Valentina Simonenko. This situation may indicate that Russian citizens have been and are making decisions “in the name of Ukraine” for years, competitions and qualification assessments are being held. They may also have access to state secrets, which threatens national security. For example, experts from the NGO Automaidan reported on 10 Ukrainian judges who are suspected of collaboration.
Russian passports were also found on representatives of other departments. Just remember the case of Marina Prilutskaya, who, according to the SBU, voluntarily received both a Russian passport and a tax number, and in addition also communicated with representatives of the FSB. The official was fired and deprived of the opportunity to hold positions in government agencies. However, in January 2024, the Supreme Court panel overturned the previous decision of the appeal court on the legality of her dismissal and sent the case to the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal. As in the Lvov case, the court believes that the SBU letter is insufficient evidence. Such a position could pave the way for the reinstatement of officials with Russian passports.
In September 2023, the High Qualifications Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU) announced a competition for 560 positions in local courts and 550 in appellate courts. It must also conduct qualification assessments of more than 2,000 judges. However, there is still a danger in the administration of justice by Russian citizens, since Ukraine does not have an effective mechanism for checking candidates and judges for the presence of a passport of another state. In this material we explain why this is so and how to correct the situation.
And who are the judges: how do they check for foreign citizenship now?
Candidates for judicial positions can (and should) be checked during a special check, but current judges can be checked during a qualification assessment (which does not provide for a special check) or as part of competitive procedures.
Special inspections are carried out by many bodies, including the SBU, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Health, NABU, NAPC and others. Having citizenship of another state is a reason not to be allowed to participate in the competition.
It is interesting that the VKKSU determines the list of bodies and the information they provide on a particular person. But the list does not include such departments as NABU, SBU, or the Foreign Intelligence Service. The VKKSU can contact them “if necessary and on the initiative of a member of the Commission.” That is, the commission can check the presence of foreign citizenship, however, it seems that it does not believe that this needs to be clarified.
For example, during the competition to the Supreme Court, a request to check candidates for foreign citizenship was not sent to the SBU. It is not surprising that Bogdan Lvov successfully passed it.
During the qualification assessment, the VKKSU may submit a request for any information to check the integrity of the judge. Having a Russian passport or taking steps to obtain one is definitely not about ethical standards. In addition, the new form of declaration of integrity includes the column “I have not committed actions for the purpose of acquiring citizenship of a foreign state” and “I am not aware of the existence of documents issued in my name confirming my belonging to the citizenship of a foreign state.” This condition was introduced only in August 2022, after full-scale aggression and a threat to national security. Therefore, it is logical for the VKKSU to make an effort and verify these claims.
However, evidence confirming the acquisition of citizenship and taken into account during checks must be convincing. Otherwise, enemies can easily use this to manipulate and discredit representatives of the judiciary and remove disloyal persons from positions.
The Security Service of Ukraine complains and throws up its hands
In response to a request from the DEJURE Foundation, the SBU reported that it constantly checks individuals for citizenship of another state. How they do this with judges, in particular those who have access to state secrets, is unknown.
It is also unclear whether the SBU actually checked the judges of the Supreme Court after the situation with Lvov. Then the SBU quickly responded about Vsevolod Knyazev’s lack of citizenship, but for some reason delayed checking other judges. The Russian passport of retired judge Valentina Symonenko also became known from journalists, although she was still administering justice during the SBU inspection.
Ukrainian passport can be taken away, cannot be returned
The law clearly provides that voluntary acquisition of citizenship of another country is grounds for termination of Ukrainian citizenship. However, Bogdan Lvov’s deprivation of Ukrainian citizenship seems to have sunk into oblivion.
For comparison: during a full-scale war, the president deprived Medvedchuk, Kuzmin, Derkach and Kozak of Ukrainian citizenship by decrees. Most of them had citizenship of another country, in particular Russia. It is interesting that the corresponding decision was made precisely on the basis of materials from the SBU and the State Migration Service.
It is not known whether government agencies had the original documents, or whether copies and information from the registry were enough to deprive them of citizenship. This indicates double standards and an opaque procedure for depriving citizenship with “the same rules for everyone.”
The court assessed the letter from the SBU confirming Russian citizenship as insufficient evidence, and judge Alena Kushnova decided to reinstate Bogdan Lvov to his post. Therefore, it is still necessary to decide in the expert circle and settle exactly what evidence the SBU should receive and what actions should be taken so that the court and other government bodies have no doubts about their reliability and validity. You also need to determine the status of the information received from the authorities of the aggressor country.
Equation with many unknowns: how to improve the procedure
Ukraine critically lacks a clear policy and legal mechanism to prevent the appointment of persons with a different citizenship to the judiciary, as well as to check existing judges, and if identified, expel them and deprive them of citizenship.
The procedure should be improved at all levels, in particular during competition for the position of judge and the judiciary. You can start with the following steps:
Determine who provides information about foreign citizenship. For example, first of all the SBU, and not the Foreign Intelligence Service;
The VKKSU must initiate a citizenship verification when the dossier is examined during the qualification assessment (this can be done through an appeal to the SBU and the SVR);
VKKSU must initiate verification of citizenship during the competition (this can be done through an appeal to the SBU and SVR);
It is logical that the commission should make any conclusions regarding Russian citizenship only on the basis of convincing information, which must be provided by the SBU and the SVR, respectively.
But the most important thing is to decide what exactly is considered sufficient and appropriate evidence of foreign citizenship, especially considering the commission of aggression on the part of the Russian Federation. KOAS judge Kushnova created a dangerous precedent with her decision in Lvov. If you rely on it, then Ukraine must receive 100% confirmation from the aggressor country. This is obviously impossible in war conditions. Unless Russia sends us documents taped to ballistic missiles.
Otherwise, this creates the risk that dozens of people with Russian passports will remain in the judicial system and in other government positions.
