Judges can avoid liability for disciplinary offenses, complaints about which were submitted to the High Council of Justice in 2019-2020. It is reported by the Judicial-legal newspaper. There are thousands of such complaints in the Supreme Court.

The High Council of Justice has not considered disciplinary complaints since August 2021 due to the law “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on the Procedure for Election (Appointment) to the Positions of Members of the High Council of Justice and the Activities of Disciplinary Inspectors of the High Council of Justice”, which entered into force on 5.

In accordance with the law, the powers of the Council to conduct disciplinary proceedings against a judge are exercised by the service of disciplinary inspectors of the High Council of Justice, the disciplinary inspector of the High Council of Justice is a participant in the disciplinary case. There are still no such inspectors today.. Given the three-year statute of limitations, thousands of complaints should simply be closed..

Before the reform of the judiciary, the Verkhovna Rada was the body authorized to dismiss judges elected indefinitely.. The High Council of Justice sent relevant petitions there, and the parliament voted " Then the Verkhovna Rada was removed from the procedure for dismissing judges.

[see_also ids\u003d"

Prior to the reform, parliamentary decisions were appealed with reference to " Some of the judges canceled their dismissal by the Verkhovna Rada through the new Supreme Court or even reached the ECtHR.

However, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court are convinced that judges who committed violations in 2012-2014 and successfully challenged their dismissal through the renewed Supreme Court or even the European Court of Human Rights are subject to dismissal.. That is, if a judge committed a misdemeanor in 2012, he should be fired, and if in 2019-2020, they cannot.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court takes the position that the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice to dismiss a judge from office in such cases is not a decision to bring a judge to disciplinary liability, but is only taken on the basis of it, that is, such a decision is a personnel decision, and not a manifestation of punishment. And the three-year term does not apply to the " Moreover, these old submissions, in the opinion of the BP VS, do not apply any time limits at all..

Formerly ZN. UA reported that Hryhoriy Usyk, Chairman of the High Council of Justice, opposes the recertification of the Supreme Court and the reduction of its membership. He spoke about this in an interview with Inna Vedernikova: " The head of the VRP is convinced that the situation with the cleansing of the judiciary from unscrupulous judges is best resolved through disciplinary proceedings.

According to Usyk: “The HQCJ has not been working for more than three years, the Supreme Court of Justice has not worked for more than a year, and the mechanism of disciplinary liability of judges for violations has not been operating for more than two years.. There are 10 thousand disciplinary proceedings in the cabinets. It's all about prevention and the inevitability of punishment.

But it makes no sense to come up with recertification when we have an effective mechanism that needs to be applied urgently"

On May 30, the Verkhovna Rada adopted in the first reading draft law No. 9261 “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine on the Resumption of Consideration of Cases on Disciplinary Liability of Judges and Ensuring the Work of the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors of the High Council of Justice”. The document was supported as a basis by 267 people's deputies. Among other things, the document clarifies the requirements for the disciplinary inspector of the VRP.