The High Council of Justice has almost finished reviewing the HQCJ’s recommendations on most of the winners of the competition for the High Anti-Corruption Court and its Appeals Chamber.
In total, the HCJ was to consider the appointment of 19 candidates previously recommended by the High Qualifications Commission of Judges. Sixteen of them have already passed their interviews, while the review of three — Denys Kovalenko, Natalia Movchan, and Kateryna Sikora — was adjourned with no date set for resuming.
The HCJ’s consideration of candidates for HACC judgeships is the final stage of the competition. After it, the President appoints the winners as judges by decree, and those who have not previously served as judges take the judicial oath.
The HCJ's consideration of candidates for HACC judgeships is the final stage of the competition.
Who has been cleared for appointment to the HACC so far
The following received HCJ nominations for appointment as HACC judges:
- Lesia Skreklia
- Marta-Mariia Yatsynina
- Oleh Khamkhodera
- Viktor Antypenko
- Yevhen Didenko
- Mykola Pika
- Vitalii Koriahin
- Vladyslav Kukhta
- Iryna Teslenko
- Oksana Hutsal
- Oleksandr Dudchenko
As judges of the HACC Appeals Chamber:
- Mykola Rubashchenko
- Inna Smal
- Olena Tanasevych
- Ihor Chaikin
- Nataliia Doroshenko
Interviews with three more candidates remain unfinished. The review of Denys Kovalenko and of sitting HACC judges Natalia Movchan and Kateryna Sikora was put off.
Interviews with three more candidates remain unfinished. The review of Denys Kovalenko and of sitting HACC judges Natalia Movchan and Kateryna Sikora was put off.
What the HCJ asked candidates
At the interviews, which began on July 2, HCJ members examined not only the candidates’ professional experience but also circumstances capable of affecting their integrity, independence, and competence. Most questions concerned facts already examined by the Public Council of International Experts at special joint sessions.
A separate block of questions dealt with motivation for entering the competition and practical readiness. Candidates with mainly academic or teaching backgrounds were asked how they would compensate for the lack of judicial or advocacy practice. Sitting judges were asked to explain why they wanted to move to the HACC, to describe their experience hearing complex criminal cases and their organization of work with court staff, and to confirm their readiness to work under considerable public and media pressure.
The HCJ also examined past judgments and the limits of judicial discretion in detail. Discussion touched on a self-recusal in a high-profile criminal proceeding, a detention ruling in which the ECHR found a violation, failure to impose the mandatory driving ban in drunk-driving cases, and errors in resolving disputes over children’s place of residence.
Integrity and lifestyle drew just as many questions. Candidates were asked about trips to Russia after the aggression began in 2014, discrepancies in border-crossing records, the purchase and sale of vehicles, declaration of former spouses’ assets, disciplinary complaints, and the return of overpaid military remuneration.
In some cases the HCJ probed possible conflicts of interest and the use of official position for personal ends: service as an election agent for a parliamentary candidate, searches for information about oneself and one’s relatives in the register of court decisions, and the alleged drafting of a judgment for another judge.
For most candidates, none of this stood in the way of a nomination to the HACC or its Appeals Chamber.
Most questions concerned facts already examined by the Public Council of International Experts at special joint sessions.
Why some candidates were put off
The HCJ announced a recess in the review of HACC judge Natalia Movchan, who is applying to the Appeals Chamber. Her one-day trip to Russia in 2016 raised numerous questions, as did the possible authorship of a draft ruling that ended up with another judge, a report of alleged interference with her email, and the consequences of her move to the appellate instance for unfinished cases.
A recess with no date set was also announced for Kateryna Sikora’s candidacy for the HACC Appeals Chamber. The review addressed the results of the NACP’s full audit of her first declaration, the failure to state the value of her former husband’s assets, a criminal proceeding closed by the SBI, and the circumstances of her divorce and the determination of her child’s place of residence.
The HCJ decided to look further into these circumstances for both candidates for HACC Appeals Chamber judgeships.
The review of Mykola Rubashchenko and Denys Kovalenko had earlier been moved from July 7 to July 14. Rubashchenko received his nomination for appointment as a HACC Appeals Chamber judge today, while Kovalenko’s review was again put off.
The HCJ decided to look further into circumstances for both candidates for HACC Appeals Chamber judgeships.
What comes next
Once it has finished reviewing all candidacies, the HCJ is to submit nominations to the President for those competition winners against whom no disqualifying circumstances have been established. The President then issues the corresponding decrees, and candidates who have not previously held judicial office take the oath.
Interviews with two more candidates — sitting first-instance HACC judges Natalia Movchan and Kateryna Sikora — are unfinished, as the HCJ announced a recess in both. We expect the HCJ to act transparently and not to drag out its review without sufficient grounds, so that HACC judges gain competent and honest colleagues.
Three other candidates — Yuliia Retynska, Tetiana Troian, and Olha Pevna — are awaiting HQCJ recommendations to fill vacancies that may open at the first-instance HACC as sitting judges move up to the appellate level.
Once it has finished reviewing all candidacies, the HCJ is to submit nominations to the President for those competition winners against whom no disqualifying circumstances have been established.
