Notes from HACC Judge Candidate Interviews — Week One

On February 16, the Public Council of International Experts and the High Qualification Commission of Judges began interviews with candidates for the positions of HACC judges.

During the first week, the following candidates completed this stage of the competition:

• Nataliia Doroshenko 
• Vladyslav Kukhta
• Ihor Makaryk 
• Olena Tanasevych
• Mykola Rubashchenko
• Iryna Kuzina
• Dmytro Ostapenko 
• Nazar Hryn 
• Vita Matolych
• Dmytro Movchan 
• Oleksii Zaitsev
•  Marta-Mariia Yatsynina 
• Ivan Posokhov 
• Oksana Hutsal 
• Oleksandr Ostrohliad
• Yevhen Kapitonovych
• Andrii Dudikov 
• Pavlo Shtifonov
• Viktor Antypenko
• Oleksandr Dudchenko

Transparency International Ukraine experts watched all interviews and compiled the most notable moments in these notes. Candidates are listed in the order in which their interviews were conducted by the Public Council of International Experts and the High Qualification Commission of Judges.

Nataliia Doroshenko

Judge, Rivne District Administrative Court

The interview opened with questions about a garden house declared in 2013. According to the candidate, her husband and his father built it on their own back in 2003. However, the land plot was privatized only in 2024, which drew the attention of the PCIE experts because the construction had taken place on land that had not been privatized at the time. Doroshenko explained that the house was built within a summer-house community association, and that the association’s land is currently being transferred into the ownership of the territorial community. The house is not registered as a residential property; she said it will be registered as such once it meets the relevant requirements.

Members of both PCIE and HQCJ also asked about Doroshenko’s husband’s garage business. She said he has been self-employed since 1998 and is currently registered as a first tax group individual entrepreneur. In 2025, he paid nearly UAH 46,000 in rent for the premises used for his business. 

However, a HQCJ member questioned the profitability of his car repair business. Doroshenko said that her husband’s income is UAH 350,000; however, given taxes, rent, utilities, and the cost of parts, the commission member suggested the business would appear unprofitable and raised doubts that all income was being declared. Doroshenko responded that there is no division into “men’s” and “women’s” work in their family; they have been married for 36 years, she relies on her husband’s support, and—she said—no one who knows how he works has such doubts.

HQCJ members also asked about decisions Doroshenko made during the Revolution of Dignity period, when she served as a judge at the Rivne District Administrative Court in 2013. Among other things, they asked about rulings that annulled decisions by local councils to display the European flag alongside the State Flag of Ukraine during holidays and international events. Doroshenko was asked whose rights, and which specific rights, had been violated by those local council decisions, given the purpose of administrative justice.

She replied that although both sides in those cases were public authorities, the claims had been filed by prosecutors who, under their powers at the time, were required to protect the interests of the state, and the legislation then in force allowed them to do so. In her view, establishing that circumstance was sufficient grounds to cancel the local council decisions. 

Questions were also raised about her professional competence. Asked how the amount of a whistleblower reward is determined, Doroshenko was unable to provide a correct answer. Her explanation of the definition of a “whistleblower” was also not sufficiently clear.

At the end of the interview, a PCIE member appeared surprised by Doroshenko’s response to a question about whether she had personally encountered corruption. She said no one had ever tried to influence her and no one had ever approached her about corrupt ways of resolving cases. The panel member replied that this was “hard to believe.”

Vladyslav Kukhta

Chairman of Chernihiv District Court, Chernihiv Region

The interview began with a question from PCIE about what the candidate, as chief judge, had done to foster a corruption-free environment in the court. Kukhta responded that the court currently has only four judges, and that they are essentially “in full view” of one another. Any deviation from fair and honest adjudication, he said, would be noticeable to colleagues.

A PCIE representative then asked whether the candidate saw additional corruption risks in the fact that all judges can see case assignments, and that, in some situations, it may even be possible to predict who will receive a case if, for example, someone is out sick. Kukhta replied that their court uses an automated case assignment system. He added that some cases require a three-judge panel, so hearings are postponed until colleagues return from sick leave. In his view, there have been no situations in which it was possible to anticipate which judge would receive a particular case.

PCIE then asked about a disciplinary sanction imposed on the candidate by the High Council of Justice in 2020 for removing himself from a criminal case. The recusal was based on the fact that the candidate’s wife was acquainted with one of the defense attorneys in the case. Kukhta said that he and the other judges on the panel granted the recusal so the defense would not be able to challenge the decision on that basis. As a result, however, the High Council of Justice sanctioned him for violating recusal rules. He did not appeal that decision.

Kukhta did not disclose this in his 2021 integrity declaration because, he said, he believed that in 2019 he had not yet been held liable, and by December 2020 the sanction had already been expunged. He therefore saw no need to report it, though he later acknowledged that this might not have been entirely ethical.

The judge was also asked about the negative practice of closing DUI cases (Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses) due to the expiration of the statutory time limit. He explained that such decisions occurred when the limitation period was three months. Because the court has jurisdiction over rural areas, sending postal notices takes at least three days, and additional time is needed for a summons to be delivered or returned if not received. In that way, the deadline could expire. He noted, however, that since the limitation period was extended to one year, the court has not had such cases.

The commission pointed out that in another Article 130 case (driving under the influence), the judge had treated the offense as minor. At the time, however, legislative amendments had already entered into force, prohibiting courts from classifying Article 130 offenses as minor. The judge acknowledged the error, after first explaining that the person facing administrative liability had cancer.

Further questions concerned the candidate’s judicial ethics—specifically, a situation in which he stepped down as court chairman for two months and then was elected chairman again for a third term. Under the law, the same judge may not serve more than two consecutive terms as court chairman. A brief “pause” in leadership therefore appeared to the commission to be an attempt to circumvent that restriction in order to secure a third term. Another notable aspect was that the judge elected as court chairman after Kukhta, who served for those two months, resigned immediately upon reaching the required length of service, obtaining lifetime judicial benefits. Legislation also provides a 10% salary supplement for serving as court chairman. As a result, that judge retired with the additional 10% reflected in her benefits, while Kukhta was able to be elected for a third term.

Kukhta said he views the three-year term limit positively, but that his colleagues did not want to run for chairman. He added that after completing his second term, he took leave to give colleagues time to discuss and agree on a candidate. However, aside from the colleague who ultimately resigned, no one volunteered.

When asked by the commission whether he knew about that judge’s intent to resign, he initially said yes, but then stated that he “did not know for sure.” He also said he had hoped she would “work at least another year and a half.” Asked whether he vacated the court chairman’s office during her two-month term, he replied, “No.” 

HQCJ asked why he had not explained these circumstances in response to PCIE’s inquiry. He answered that at the time he did not see a need to do so, because he had “always acted honestly.”

Ihor Makaryk

Attorney

The interview opened with questions about Makaryk’s motivation and his lack of judicial experience. Ihor Makaryk said he views the absence of courtroom experience as an advantage because it allows him to approach criminal procedure from a different perspective. He also emphasized his high level of competence, stating that he performed well on the exams and drafted procedural documents that, in his words, were even better than those prepared by sitting HACC judges.

A substantial portion of the questions from PCIE and HQCJ focused on financial integrity and potential conflicts of interest. In particular, the panel was interested in Makaryk’s lease of office space for his legal practice. He rents a 49.1 m² office in Lviv from his employer for UAH 1,000. Asked whether this rate reflects market pricing, he said it does, citing the experience of other attorneys. 

During the interview, it also emerged that the candidate had represented, free of charge, relatives of the owners of the company where he works, and from which he rents office space for UAH 1,000. Makaryk said he does not see this as a conflict of interest or connected to the low rent: “All my work and my entire legal life—I consider it a hobby, my true calling.” He added that under martial law he decided he would provide all legal services pro bono. 

HQCJ pointed to a 2023 decision of the Sykhiv District Court under which UAH 5,000 in legal fees was awarded in favor of the candidate’s client, but those funds were not reflected in his tax reporting. Makaryk explained this by saying either the contract had been terminated or the funds were never actually paid despite the court decision.

TI Ukraine also found a case involving this candidate in which, in the Terebovlia District Court, he represented the claimant, his father, a former judge of the same court. In 2022, the court granted his father’s claim and ordered reimbursement of his litigation costs, including UAH 2,000 in legal fees, from the state budget.

Separate attention during the interview was given to military service obligations. The candidate received “reserved” status in the summer of 2024 as in-house counsel for a critical enterprise. Asked what he had done to comply with his obligations between 2022 and 2024, Makaryk said he contacted the Territorial Recruitment and Social Support Center to update his records, where he was allegedly told that “his candidacy was not being considered.”

Makaryk was unable to answer a question about how many European countries have anti-corruption courts, even though during the interview he referred to his desire to join the “European family.” He also interrupted members of the commission, prompting remarks asking him to listen to questions through to the end.

Olena Tanasevych

HACC Judge

Olena Tanasevych’s interview focused largely on the circumstances of her attendance at an event that attracted public attention as the “Kivalov party.” According to Tanasevych, she came to the educational institution’s premises outside working hours to discuss organizing online lectures. Once she arrived, the head of the institution informed her that a pre–New Year’s event was taking place and invited her to join briefly. She agreed, saying she planned to stay for no more than 15–20 minutes.

Describing what happened at the event, Tanasevych said that upon entering the venue she noticed people present whom she described as figures in publicly known criminal proceedings. She stated that she understood the potential sensitivity of the situation and therefore avoided any communication with those individuals; she added that they did not attempt to initiate contact with her either. Tanasevych also emphasized that no complaints about her actions had been filed with the High Council of Justice. She referenced her public explanations, including participation in a conversation with the Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine. Asked whether she was aware of allegations involving Serhii Kivalov, Tanasevych said she had not interacted with him personally but rather with the head of the relevant unit at the institution, and added that she was not aware of any criminal proceedings involving Kivalov.

The next block of questions concerned asset declarations and financial circumstances. PCIE and HQCJ pointed to the results of a full review of her declarations and noted inaccuracies. Tanasevych attributed these issues to the specifics of anti-corruption legislation and the possibility of differing interpretations, denying any intent to conceal information. 

The cost of vehicles was discussed separately. Tanasevych said that some of the vehicles were owned by legal entities and used by her under a right-of-use arrangement; in her view, she was therefore not responsible for their purchase and did not know their value. She emphasized that she still listed them in her declarations even when, as she put it, there was no direct legal obligation to do so. A PCIE member also raised the possibility of concealing assets through companies, noting that the lack of clear answers about vehicle values could create that impression and that, as a HACC judge, she should demonstrate a high standard of disclosure. 

HQCJ also asked a series of follow-up questions about the nature of Tanasevych’s cooperation with educational institutions, reports of interference in her work as a judge, cross-border travel, and certain aspects of her declarations. Tanasevych acknowledged that a land plot had not been reported in her 2021 declaration and said her husband provided the information too late. She said that once she learned her husband had acquired it, she contacted the National Agency on Corruption Prevention through her personal online account. 

The interview also addressed her use of official housing in Kyiv. Tanasevych said that while she was on maternity leave she does not actually live there and instead stays with her child in the suburbs of Kyiv. She explained that the apartment is located near a military facility and lacks heat and electricity, which makes it unsafe to live there with a small child.

Mykola Rubashchenko

Associate Professor, Criminal Law Department, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University

The interview began with a question about the professional accomplishments the candidate is most proud of. Among five key achievements, Rubashchenko cited his academic work, including dissertations on national security and liability for collaborationism, as well as his expert involvement in drafting legislation to criminalize sanctions violations. In response to a PCIE follow-up about his membership in a working group on amendments to the Criminal Code, the candidate clarified that he served as an expert evaluating the concept and helping develop the draft law on criminal liability for violations of sanctions legislation. 

Asked about a point in his motivation letter regarding insufficient reasoning in court decisions, the candidate was unable to recall specific examples from HACC case law. He explained this by noting that he has published relatively few articles on anti-corruption topics. PCIE also asked about his work with the “Institute of Legislative Ideas” and whether that could create a conflict of interest if he became a HACC judge. Rubashchenko said that while conflicts of interest are a potential risk in any field, in his case the risk is not “extremely high.”

PCIE questioned his motivation given that he is simultaneously participating in a competition for a position at the Kharkiv Court of Appeal. Rubashchenko stated candidly that if he were successful in both competitions, he would choose the Kharkiv Court of Appeal. He explained that Kharkiv is his alma mater and that appellate work appeals to him because it involves a broader range of cases than the narrower specialization of the HACC.

PCIE and HQCJ pointed to inconsistencies in his declarations regarding his place of residence and family composition. Rubashchenko explained that from 2006 to 2022 he lived in a dormitory, and after the start of the full-scale invasion he moved to his parents’ home in the village of Myronivka. He said he listed the dormitory in his declarations only as long as his rental agreement remained in effect. As for why his brother, who also lived with him in the village, was not included in his 2022 declaration, Rubashchenko referred to the “183-day rule,” stating that he carefully calculated the duration of their shared household in order to comply with legal requirements.

HQCJ also raised questions about the lease of an apartment in Kyiv, including the absence of the owner’s details. The candidate said the arrangement had no legal significance and was signed between a friend of the owner’s mother and his own friend. Asked about his father’s income from cultivating approximately 11 hectares of land in 2022, reported as only UAH 16,000, Rubashchenko said he does not get involved in those matters and that he took the figure from his father’s online taxpayer account. He added that such income is entirely plausible and that the activity could even have been loss-making. 

HQCJ noted the candidate’s atypical activity as an individual entrepreneur: in 2023, after six months of work and UAH 76,000 in income, he closed his business, then later entered into two additional contracts as an individual, and in 2024 reopened his individual entrepreneur account. Rubashchenko described this as a “first attempt,” explaining that clients had been unwilling to work with him as an individual entrepreneur. He denied that this was an effort to optimize taxes. HQCJ also asked about the royalties he declared in the amount of UAH 12,000 for an expert examination. The candidate said this wording reflected requirements imposed by the commissioning organizations, for which he developed tests. 

In the end, responding to questions about his lack of judicial experience, the candidate acknowledged that he has no courtroom experience at all. He said his qualifications are also based on analyzing judicial decisions and watching livestreams of HACC hearings. Rubashchenko added that he is inspired by academic colleagues who have gone on to serve at HACC and at the Supreme Court.

Iryna Kuzina

Attorney

During Iryna Kuzina’s interview, members of PCIE and HQCJ paid particular attention to her income, which appeared significantly understated in certain periods. The candidate explained that early in her career, or when she wanted to gain experience, she worked “for her name,” including within the pro bono legal aid system, and that she reduced her workload during periods of pregnancy. 

The panel separately examined the issue of so-called “gray” salary and Kuzina’s income during her employment at the law firm Ilyashev & Partners. When asked directly about the practice of unofficial payments, the candidate confirmed that in the past she had agreed to such arrangements, noting that she would act differently today. 

The subsequent discussion was about the relationship between her description of the firm’s prestige and compensation level, and the amounts reflected in official records (approximately UAH 50,000 for part of 2015, and for 2016–2017 combined). Kuzina pointed to the employer’s responsibility for accurate financial reporting and said she was limited in what she could disclose about her income due to a nondisclosure agreement. At the same time, given the discrepancy between the circumstances she described and the recorded income, these explanations do not objectively eliminate reasonable doubts that she may have received unofficial payments during that period, especially in light of her own description of the firm’s high status.

Many questions concerned matters reviewed by the High Council of Justice in connection with a 2018 report of interference in a judge’s activities. Members of PCIE and HQCJ examined Kuzina’s role and procedural conduct as defense counsel in detail, including her lateness to hearings, the filing of numerous motions, and the overall logic of the defense strategy. The candidate disagreed with the assessments contained in the High Council of Justice materials, emphasized concerns about the Council’s review procedure, and presented her own account of the situation. In particular, she said the delays were due to objective reasons and that she informed the court in advance, which is confirmed by the case materials.

The interview also addressed the candidate’s trip to the Russian Federation in 2018. Kuzina explained that the business trip to Moscow was professionally necessary as part of her work at Ilyashev & Partners and related to work for a client from Kazakhstan. She said she did not stay overnight in Moscow and did not spend any money, as all expenses were paid by the law firm, and that her work that day took place at the firm’s Moscow office.

Dmytro Ostapenko 

Attorney

The first questions from PCIE focused on how Ostapenko responded to attempts at corrupt influence—both from clients and from colleagues who tried to leverage his membership in the Public Integrity Council to make it easier to pass the qualification assessment. He referenced these incidents in his dossier. Ostapenko said he cut off any communication with such people, viewing them as a threat to his reputation and career. However, he noted that as an attorney he is bound by confidentiality and professional ethics rules, and therefore could not cooperate confidentially with law enforcement to investigate such approaches.

Asked whether he informed colleagues on the Public Integrity Council about specific cases of pressure, Ostapenko confirmed that such discussions took place in the council’s group chat. In response to a hypothetical question about what he would do in a similar situation as a HACC judge, he said the law requires a judge to report any interference in their work and that he would follow that requirement.

Most of Ostapenko’s interview focused on his role on the selection commission for the head of ARMA, specifically his vote for Olena Duma in the final round. After civil society criticism of Duma’s appointment as head of ARMA, he withdrew his vote and publicly apologized for the decision. Notably, Ostapenko was the only commission member to publicly acknowledge that his vote had been a mistake.

A PCIE expert asked who had delegated Ostapenko to the commission, and he replied that it was then–Prosecutor General Andrii Kostin. The expert then asked what motivated Ostapenko to vote for Duma, and later to withdraw that vote. Ostapenko explained that some materials about the candidates were sent to him by email, while other documents were stored on a computer at the Cabinet of Ministers, and he was not always informed when new information appeared. In particular, he said that the full information from NABU concerning a criminal proceeding involving Duma, as he later learned, was available only on that computer. The documents he had access to did not indicate that she was a suspect. He said that if he had had the full information, he “would never have voted for Ms. Duma.” 

He also said the voting procedure had not been clarified in advance and in fact conflicted with the rules of procedure. Ostapenko said he believed the public vote was only meant to rank candidates, but in practice the commission chair announced the winner essentially after the first round.

Members of PCIE and HQCJ noted, however, that a clear agenda should have been set before the official vote and that commission members had information from the NACP, NABU, NGOs, and other sources—and therefore should not have made such an error. Ostapenko again stated that he did not have access to all the information. His withdrawal of the vote prompted a further PCIE question: did that mean that, as a judge, Ostapenko might similarly respond to public pressure and reverse decisions after high-profile media coverage? Ostapenko said he sees a clear difference between serving on a selection commission and serving as a judge: in the first case there is far more discretion; in the second, there is a strict procedure, deliberations in chambers, and a system of appellate review. “A judge cannot withdraw their vote,” he emphasized, adding that the ARMA selection process was “more political than legal.”

HQCJ also asked directly whether the candidate felt he had developed “professional distortion” from identifying with civil society. Ostapenko replied that he does have a form of distortion, but an attorney one—an inclination toward critical assessment of information and distrust even toward his own clients. At the same time, he acknowledged that some NGOs irritate him because of the way they communicate.

Among other issues, HQCJ focused on several facts from the candidate’s dossier. These included a $25,000 loan received in 2020, part of which ($9,000) was repaid that same year, although the repayment was not declared as debt repayment. Ostapenko explained that the declaration form in use at the time did not technically allow him to record such a repayment. 

Regarding his membership in the Svoboda party in 2013–2014 and his candidacy for Parliament in single-member District No. 54 (Shakhtarsk, Donetsk Region), Ostapenko said this reflected his desire to counter trends of Russification and separatism in Donetsk Region during the Yanukovych era. According to him, at the time only that party promoted a clearly pro-Ukrainian stance. He said that beginning in March 2014 he ceased all party involvement.

Nazar Hryn

Judge, Saksahanskyi District Court of Kryvyi Rih

The interview opened with PCIE questions about a land plot in Poltava that Hryn received in 2010 while working as a prosecutor. The commission noted that his brother, also a prosecutor, received a similar plot around the same time. Hryn said he acted strictly within the Land Code: he filed an application and completed the paperwork to obtain land for construction. He denied exerting any influence on the council or making any payments, and explained that no construction took place because he ultimately continued working in Kryvyi Rih.

PCIE also raised questions about the candidate’s official housing in two different cities. Regarding an apartment in Kryvyi Rih, for which he received a right of use in 2018, Hryn said he did not actually live there and lost the right to it in 2022. According to him, he was not given keys to the apartment and was advised to climb in through a window to access it. It also emerged that unhoused people were living inside, so he had to rent alternative housing.

Questions were also raised about an official apartment in Poltava that he received in 2010. The candidate said he did not vacate it after moving from the prosecutor’s office to the judiciary because his wife (a prosecutor) continued living there, and later her parents—who have internally displaced person status—began living there as well. Although he had only about nine years of service at the time he left, he said he believed he had the right not to vacate the apartment. He also noted that his ex-wife has not actually lived there since 2018.

PCIE drew attention to the purchase of an apartment in Kryvyi Rih by the candidate’s mother-in-law, where Hryn now lives with his wife. Questions arose because the candidate held a power of attorney for the purchase but did not state the purchase price in his declaration. Hryn acknowledged this as a mistake, explaining that although he knew the price when the contract was signed, he failed to include it. The panel also focused on the price itself: the apartment was purchased for UAH 164,000, which PCIE said was three times below market value. The candidate denied that the price was understated, explaining that the owners needed to leave urgently for Poland and that the apartment had an old Soviet-era renovation. He also stressed that he did not contribute any personal funds, as the purchase was made entirely with his mother-in-law’s money. 

PCIE raised the issue of child support litigation. In 2018, the candidate’s first wife filed a claim; in 2020, his current wife filed a claim even though they were married at the time. Hryn explained that his second wife did so to equalize the rights of the children. He later filed his own claim to reduce the payment amount.

HQCJ noted that the candidate’s questionnaire did not have examples of cases involving corruption-related offenses, even though he had handled nine such administrative proceedings. Hryn said he remembers that one was closed due to the statute of limitations, and in the others he did not issue a final decision because his judicial term ended.

HQCJ also discussed delays in a case on holding a judge liable. Hryn attributed this to the case being transferred among courts over an extended period and to the inability to consider the matter without the person concerned being present. The commission also pointed to 24 disciplinary complaints, including one from the Prosecutor General regarding a case under Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, involving a prosecutor. HQCJ was struck by the speed of the review—the case was closed within a week. The candidate denied there were grounds for recusal, saying that although the prosecutor had supported the prosecution in some of Hryn’s cases, their relationship was purely professional. Hryn closed the case for lack of an offense. 

HQCJ also asked about the repeated viewing, in the unified database of court decisions, of information about a person with the surname Mehamiedov. According to system logs, searches were conducted using the candidate’s access key over the period 2018–2025. Hryn said he did not recognize the name, was not monitoring anything, and could not explain the activity. He added that an internal inquiry would be conducted.

During HQCJ’s theory questions, the candidate appeared uncertain. He was unable to clearly list corruption-related crimes and gave a vague answer about how to distinguish administrative corruption offenses.