The Supreme Court returned the candidate to the competition for a position in the Supreme Judicial Council: doubts about his integrity were found to be insufficiently substantiated

The Cassation Administrative Court of the Supreme Court overturned the joint decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges and the Public Council of International Experts regarding a candidate for the High Anti-Corruption Court.

The candidate was previously recognized as not meeting the integrity criteria and his participation in the competition was terminated. However, the Supreme Court concluded that “reasonable doubt” should be based on specific factual data, and not just assumptions.

The decision of the CAS of the Supreme Court was adopted on September 17 in case No. 990/252/26.

Why doubts about integrity arose

The claims of the HQCJ and the Public Council of International Experts concerned several episodes: the receipt and privatization of an apartment in Kharkiv, the reconstruction of official housing in Kryvyi Rih, and the absence of the judge at his workplace in March 2022.

In particular, in 2011, the candidate was admitted to the housing register in Kharkiv “as an exception”, and less than two months later he received a one-room apartment with an area of ​​25.8 sq. m.

At that time, he held the position of head of staff of the Court of Appeal of the Kharkiv region.

The candidate himself explained that he had applied for improvement of housing conditions in the general procedure, since he lived in a dormitory. According to him, he learned about the wording “as an exception” only in 2026.

The primary documents regarding admission to the housing register were no longer preserved due to the expiration of the established storage periods.

The Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that the decision of the HQCJ and the State Property and Housing Commission did not properly explain what information the candidate had falsely reported or what information he had concealed.

Reconstruction of an official apartment

Another episode concerned an official apartment in Kryvyi Rih. After the reconstruction, its area increased from 43.7 to 54 sq. m.

The candidate claimed that the work was carried out on the basis of the relevant design and permit documentation. The case materials also included a declaration of the facility’s readiness for operation, registered by the state architectural and construction control body.

The Supreme Court concluded that the HQCJ did not take into account the provision that allowed reconstruction if the necessary documents were available, and did not properly assess the explanations and evidence provided by the candidate.

The increase in the area of ​​the apartment, the Court noted, cannot be considered separately from the documents on the basis of which the work was carried out.

Absence from work after the start of a full-scale war

Questions to the candidate also arose due to his absence from the workplace in March 2022.

According to the judge’s explanations, from February 20 to 25 he was on sick leave, from February 26 to March 7 he worked and administered justice, and from March 8 to 20 he was temporarily unable to work again.

During this period, he and his family left for the western border to evacuate his wife and minor daughter.

On March 20, the candidate applied to the CCC and the Joint Committee for Military Service for mobilization. According to him, he deliberately did not report his status as a judge and the presence of a reservation, since he considered the protection of the state a priority.

The judge also claimed that he maintained contact with the head of the court via messengers and provided screenshots of the relevant correspondence.

The Supreme Court found that these materials had not been properly assessed. In addition, the mere physical absence of a judge from his workplace is not sufficient grounds for concluding that he was dishonest, especially in the presence of confirmed temporary incapacity.

“Reasonable doubt” must be supported by facts

The Supreme Court emphasized: the HQCJ has discretionary powers during the qualification assessment, but they do not exclude judicial control.

The court can check whether all essential circumstances have been investigated, whether the candidate’s evidence has been properly assessed, and whether the conclusions drawn are sufficiently motivated.

The doubt itself regarding the candidate’s explanations is not enough. “Reasonable doubt” must be based on specific factual data, and the decision must make it clear why the explanations and evidence provided could not eliminate it.

As a result, the CAS of the Supreme Court granted the judge’s claim and overturned the joint decision of the HQCJ and the State Commission for the Protection of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It was also decided in favor of the plaintiff to collect UAH 1,064.96 of court fees from the HQCJ budget.

The decision can be appealed to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court within 30 days from the date of the full court decision.