The prosecutor avoided liability under Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offences: the Supreme Court of Justice found no grounds to punish the judge

The High Council of Justice left unchanged the decision to refuse to bring to disciplinary action the judge of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Lviv, Pavlo Eder. They wanted to punish him after he closed the case of drunk driving.

Why did the claims arise against the judge

This is case No. 466/11407/21 under Part One of Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. In February 2022, Pavlo Eder closed the proceedings due to the lack of elements of an administrative offense.

The complainant believed that the judge had improperly performed his duties and, without sufficient justification, gave preference to the explanations of the person being held accountable, the conclusion of a medical institution on the absence of alcohol in the blood, and the conclusion of a polygraph examiner.

The complaint also stated that the decision was made “in the interests of the prosecutor, who is the son of a judge of the Supreme Court.” Subsequently, the person against whom the administrative proceedings were closed was dismissed from his position in the prosecutor’s office by the decision of the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors.

The judges proposed to issue a severe reprimand

The disciplinary inspector of the Supreme Court of Justice, Ihor Tron, proposed to issue a severe reprimand to Pavlo Eder and deprive him of the right to receive additional payments to his official salary for three months.

However, the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice did not support this proposal. Instead, it was proposed to refuse to hold the judge accountable and terminate the disciplinary proceedings.

Why the Supreme Court did not see grounds for punishment

The disciplinary body emphasized: it is the appellate court that must assess the motives of the court decision, the completeness of the establishment of the circumstances of the case, and the correctness of the application of the norms of law.

The Supreme Court cannot actually take on the functions of the appellate instance and verify the legality and legal content of the judge’s decision.

The Supreme Administrative Court also noted that the police did not formulate clear arguments regarding the person’s refusal to undergo a physical examination. At the same time, the judge could not independently change the plot of the administrative protocol to the detriment of the person or look for additional evidence of his guilt, since in this case the court would actually take over the functions of the prosecution.

Final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court

The High Council of Justice heard Judge Pavlo Eder and the disciplinary inspector, but did not support the proposal to cancel the decision of the Second Disciplinary Chamber.

As a result, the previous decision was left unchanged – the judge will not be held disciplinary liable.

At the same time, the Chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court, Hryhoriy Usyk, announced that he would express a separate opinion on this decision.