On June 18, the Supreme Court ruled that Pavlo Vovk’s dismissal was lawful. The ruling relied on materials from covert investigative (search) actions that the NABU had obtained in the “DACK tapes” case.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court issued this ruling almost two weeks earlier, but the full text was only published on June 30.

One of former DACK judge Vovk’s main arguments was that the High Council of Justice (HCJ) had no right to use materials from covert investigative actions to hold him disciplinarily liable. 

But the Grand Chamber’s decision continues its established practice: there is no such prohibition. The HCJ may use materials from covert investigative actions to justify a judge’s disciplinary offense. Indeed, on May 14 this year, the Grand Chamber did not change its position on this question in case No. 990SCGC/32/25, in which Serhii Burkhan, a judge of the Verkhnodniprovsk District Court, similarly challenged the HCJ’s use of covert investigative action materials to prove his guilt in disciplinary proceedings — despite heated debate.

The debate over using such materials in disciplinary proceedings has continued for years. We have previously noted that, since NABU was created, many high-profile corruption cases have involved judges. The most notorious example is the DACK tapes case, which recorded attempts to seize control of Ukraine’s judicial system. As a result, the HCJ has already dismissed several figures in that case for disciplinary offenses, including Yevhenii Ablov and Bohdan Sanin. 

The problem is that recordings of conversations, or other materials from covert investigative actions, remain the key evidence in many such cases. Based solely on wiretap materials, the HCJ has already disciplined more than 50 judges, 48 of whom were dismissed.

With its May ruling, the Grand Chamber upheld this practice as lawful. This means the HCJ can continue to discipline and dismiss dishonest judges based on properly assessed materials from criminal proceedings.

On January 27, 2022, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reviewed and granted the complaint of the HACC judge Tymur Khamzin against the decision of the High Council of Justice.

Let us remind you that on January 13, 2021, the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice brought Tymur Khamzin, investigating judge of the Anti-Corruption Court, to disciplinary liability for giving permission to search the premises of Volodymyr Keleberda, judge of the Kyiv Administrative Court.

According to the HCJ, there were no sufficient grounds for the search, but the High Council of Justice saw the grounds for punishing Khamzin. The judge of the HACC, on the contrary, was of the opinion that the case file testified to the necessity of the search because other than that, it was impossible to obtain information about the alleged crime.

This case and many others clearly illustrated that the HCJ is corrupt officials’ convenient tool for influence. Civil society organizations have repeatedly stressed: instead of bringing those responsible to justice, members of the High Council of Justice seek disciplinary offenses with the judge of the HACC. This is especially flagrant because we are talking about a scandalous case against KAC judges.

However, justice still prevailed!