Candidate for the Supreme Court of Justice argued with the Ethics Council and proposed renaming the interview to an interrogation

The re-interview of the candidate for the position of member of the High Council of Justice Mykola Kucheryavenko with the Ethics Council has turned into a dispute. The candidate questioned the previous negative conclusion regarding his integrity, called some of the questions “inadequate,” and at the end suggested renaming the interview to “interrogation.”

Why is Kucheryavenko being interviewed a second time

Mykola Kucheryavenko had already been interviewed by the Ethics Council on July 6 as a candidate for the High Council of Justice under the quota of the Congress of Representatives of Law Universities and Scientific Institutions.

At that time, the Council members asked questions about a loan of UAH 4.6 million, receipts destroyed after the funds were returned, his mother’s property, the origin of family funds, and his work on the competition commission for the election of the NABU director.

Based on the results of the first interview, the Ethics Council recognized Kucheryavenko as not meeting the criteria of professional ethics and integrity.

This time he is participating in the selection again – already under the quota of the Verkhovna Rada.

The candidate did not agree with the previous assessment

During the re-interview, Kucheryavenko stated that the previous negative conclusion, in his opinion, was built on “doubts and assumptions”.

One of the main topics again became the loan, which the Ethics Council had investigated earlier.

When asked whether he had found new documents regarding it, the candidate replied that he had not looked for them.

He explained his position by the presence of a court decision, which, according to him, had already established the fact of the loan and the fulfillment of obligations.

“Fiscal checks for nails have not been preserved”

The candidate separately criticized the requirements for documentary confirmation of old expenses.

In particular, it concerned repairs and re-equipment of property, which were carried out in 2008, 2010 and 2012.

Kucheryavenko stated that after many years it is impossible to provide checks for every small purchase.

He also mentioned the question of what denominations he used to get a loan almost ten years ago and where exactly he kept these funds.

The Ethics Council stopped the candidate’s speech

At a certain point, the chairman of the Ethics Council Lev Kyshakevich stopped Kucheryavenko, noting that the candidate had been stating his own position on the previous decision for about 15 minutes.

The chairman emphasized that this was an interview, not an appeal of the previous conclusion.

Kucheryavenko, on the other hand, insisted that he was not appealing the decision, but only explaining his position and the circumstances that, in his opinion, were incorrectly assessed.

“Maybe we should rename the interview to an interrogation?”

At the end of the meeting, Kucheryavenko questioned the very format of the Ethics Council’s communication with candidates.

He suggested considering whether such a format corresponds to the name “Ethical Council”, after which he stated: “Maybe we should rename the interview to interrogation?”

The candidate also wished the members of the Council a “quiet day” and expressed the hope that in communicating with other candidates they would “at least sometimes see people”.

After that, the Ethics Council concluded the interview.