In October 2022, the Chairman of the Supreme Court, Vsevolod Knyazev, asked the SBU to check whether any of the judges of the Supreme Court had Russian citizenship. In the four months that have passed since then, the SBU checked Knyazev himself and the judges of the Cassation Economic Court as part of the Supreme Court.
hromadske spoke with Knyazev about whether Russian passports were found in any of the more than 170 judges of the Supreme Court, who from the Office of the President is sticking sticks in judicial reform, and what the future holds for the judges of the scandalous District Administrative Court of Kyiv.
In October, a fake spread on the Internet about your Russian citizenship. Have you contacted law enforcement?
I immediately contacted law enforcement regarding this shameful incident. Criminal proceedings were initiated. I cannot disclose the secret of the investigation, but specific persons have already been identified, investigative actions have been carried out, and everything is moving towards the fact that these persons will be held criminally liable.
And who was the customer of this information attack?
As far as I know, the investigation in this direction has not progressed much. Currently, the specific executors and intermediaries of this criminal scheme have been identified.
I remember that the fake was spread by lawyer Rostyslav Kravets...
So. He is known for advocating the interests of OASK judges, advocating the interests of Bohdan Lviv upon his dismissal from the post of judge of the Supreme Court. So, as a lawyer, he takes this position. But is it ethical for a lawyer to do such things? I think that this question should be answered by the relevant bodies of bar self-government.
What bodies conduct the investigation?
The Office of the Prosecutor General, the Security Service of Ukraine and the relevant departments of the National Police in the fight against cybercrime.
You have already mentioned Bohdan Lviv, the former chairman of the Commercial Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court, whose journalists from the "Scheme" program found Russian passport. He wants to be reinstated in his position, last year he applied to the disbanded OASK. What are his chances?
Now, as far as I know, this case has been transferred to the Kyiv District Administrative Court. If this process is open and fair, then he has no chance of being reinstated. Only on the condition that the fact that Bohdan Lviv has Russian citizenship will be denied.
But after the publication of a copy of the contract of donation of a share of an apartment in the Russian Federation, in which he signed as a citizen of the Russian Federation, and this contract was certified by the relevant authorities of registration of rights, I have no doubts that he is a citizen of the Russian Federation. Likewise, I did not have them when I made the decision to terminate employment with him, because the SBU clearly stated this in its documents.
You initiated a check of all judges of the Supreme Court for the presence of Russian citizenship. Are there any results yet?
A check was conducted on me as the head of the Supreme Council, which established that I do not have Russian citizenship. And the second — regarding the judges of the Cassation Commercial Court: the letter to the Supreme Court states that the Security Service of Ukraine does not have any information about the presence of the judges of the KGS of other countries. As for other judges of the Supreme Court, the review is ongoing.
Recently, the president revoked the citizenship of several Yanukovych-era officials, but we did not see Lviv on this list. Why is the president procrastinating on this issue even after confirmation from the SBU?
I know that the president intends to fight against all enemies of Ukraine. As for some other employees of the President's Office, I am personally not sure whether they are working for our enemy.
Especially after loud ones investigations investigative journalists and statement of anti-corruption authorities regarding suspicions of corruption in relation to one of the deputy heads of the President's Office. We have seen the reaction: public statements and cheeks towards the leadership of anti-corruption bodies and even worse statement regarding investigative journalists.
So we can understand that support for this issue (postponement of depriving Bohdan Lviv of citizenship — ed.) in the Office of the President may come from some quite influential officials.
Are you talking about Smirnov now?
The requirements of judicial ethics do not allow to switch to personalities.
At what level do you communicate with the President's Office, in particular with Andrii Smirnov?
I would divide communication with the presidential power into two levels. The first is communication with the president and the head of the OP, which is established at an appropriate level. We have systematic meetings with Volodymyr Zelenskyi and Andriy Yermak. The president hears the things I tell him about the judicial system. We talk a lot about the effective implementation of those reforms that are set before us today within the framework of European integration.
Regarding communication with some other representatives of the President's Office, it seems to me that there is more of an imitation of participation in and support for judicial reform than a real understanding of the problems of the judiciary. And even more so — constructive actions that would bring our European integration closer.
Andriy Smirnov made several throws in the direction of the Supreme Court. For example, the quote: "If the Ethics Council, chaired by a current Supreme Court judge, chooses 16 people as candidates for the Supreme Court, 7 of whom are judges of the same Supreme Court, and this is accepted by society, then everything is fine." How do you comment on such indirect criticism?
These messages were very negatively received by the judicial community, because if our European integration task was to form the High Council of Justice, and one of the heads of the OP actually criticizes the stages of the process that are included in the reform of the Supreme Judicial Council, this demotivates judges to participate in the congress, to be elected new members of the VRP. As a result, this could be the reason for the failure of the formation of the High Council of Justice and non-fulfillment of the second European integration requirement in the list of requirements sent by the European Commission.
Therefore, I can consider these actions more destructive. In addition, members delegated by international partners have the right to a decisive vote in the work of the Ethics Council. So what do such statements towards the Ethics Council mean? The profile deputy OP accuses our partners of what? It is also worth noting that not all of the seven judges of the Supreme Court were supported by the Congress of Judges and became members of the Supreme Court.
Smirnov too respects, that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court is not needed, and you have a conflict of interest as a member of the Grand Chamber and a member of the Supreme Court. Allegedly, you as the head of the Supreme Court can influence your colleagues during the review of decisions of the Supreme Court.
I cannot influence the consideration of such cases in any way, because by law I do not take part in the review of the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court. On the day of consideration of such cases by the Supreme Court, I generally work in the VRP. But you can talk to the judges of the Grand Chamber and ask them.
And with regard to whether it is possible to abandon the Great Chamber of the Supreme Court, I have a question: which body will be the appellate body regarding the consideration of disputes on appeals against the acts of the President, the Verkhovna Rada, the Supreme Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Ukraine? Which body will ensure interjurisdictional unity of judicial practice?
Before the Grand Chamber started working in 2017, there were no effective mechanisms for unifying practice between different jurisdictions. A party that lost a case in one jurisdiction went to another and, using not always legal mechanisms, obtained a decision in its favor there. Now this is almost impossible. And if it is possible somewhere, it means that such a case has not yet been considered in the Great Chamber of the Supreme Court.
So in order to give up something, you need to come up with another mechanism.
If someone does not like the decisions of the Grand Chamber, then it is necessary to look closely at what is behind these ideas and why there is dissatisfaction with the principled decisions of the Grand Chamber. You could read about one of them a few days ago in all news (it is about the fact that the Supreme Court confirmed the impossibility of returning PrivatBank to its former owners and closed the proceedings on the lawsuit in this case — ed.).
If we talk about relations with Russia again, I would like to hear your position regarding the judge of the Sixth Appeal Administrative Court, Yaroslav Vasylenko. Journalists made public information that he traveled to Crimea 25 times after the occupation, and also that he has undeclared real estate in Sevastopol and Moscow. Can such a background affect the independence of a judge?
I was amazed at this situation. It is not clear to me how after the beginning of the aggression of the Russian Federation in 2014 it was possible to make trips to Crimea without a significant need. If it is the death of a relative, I allow such actions. If it was done for recreation or some other purpose, except that which is forced, it is strange to me.
The fact of non-declaration of property in the Russian Federation is even more shocking. These issues will be considered by the Supreme Council of Justice, I am sure of that. An appropriate assessment will be given within the disciplinary procedures. In addition, I do not rule out that anti-corruption bodies will act and, perhaps, court cases will arise in the future.
How will OASK judges be transferred to other courts? It was said that some of them would go to the AOC.
There will be no automatic transfer. According to the current legislation, when the court is liquidated, judges should be offered positions in other courts. But this is possible only after these judges pass a qualification assessment, the results of which will determine whether they meet the criteria of competence, integrity and professional ethics in order to continue working as judges.
How do you rate the actions of the OASK judges, in particular the episodes, fixed on NABU tapes? Does the fact that such judges as Vovk, Ablov and others are still in the system indicate the imperfection of the judicial system? Should we expect evaluation of the actions of these judges from the Supreme Court?
I cannot comment on the merits of the so-called films, as I am a member of the VRP and may have to evaluate them within the framework of disciplinary or other procedures. However, a few years ago, the Plenum of the Supreme Court expressed itself in an extra-procedural way regarding these "films". And, as you probably remember, the judges of the Supreme Court noted at the time that "considerable damage has been caused to the judiciary by the content of the records."
The Supreme Administrative Court, of course, should consider all disciplinary complaints that have accumulated during this time, including complaints against the judges of the OASK, with an amendment to the terms of prosecution. It is worth noting here that the procedures for the selection of disciplinary inspectors are just starting.
What now with the service of disciplinary inspectors?
There are significant problems in the process of formation of this service. In my opinion, the norms that are included in the legislation today are not ideal and are subject to correction.
I am personally worried about this law, that the salary of disciplinary inspectors is at the level of a civil servant of category B. This means that a person will receive 17 thousand hryvnias "on hand" and at the same time assess the disciplinary misconduct of judges of the appeals instance, the Supreme Court, etc.
The requirements for a disciplinary inspector are very high — the need for 7 years of work experience as a judge, prosecutor or lawyer. Tell me, will a professional, competent lawyer go to work for 17 thousand hryvnias? Is it a judge?
If someone goes to these positions, what will be the purpose of this work? Won't people go there to make money some other way? Of course, I am not talking about all the candidates: I am sure that there will be honest candidates who will come to work for the sake of the idea.
The State Anti-corruption Program proposes to strengthen the Public Integrity Council. For example, if there is a negative conclusion from the State Administrative Court regarding a judge or a candidate, then a joint meeting of the Supreme Court of Appeals and State Administrative Court is held. To overcome this conclusion, a majority from both the GRD and the VKKS is needed. But VRP believes that such strengthening of the Public Integrity Council is not necessary. For what reasons?
The final decision regarding the judicial career must be made by the bodies of judicial governance. That is, the Supreme Council of Justice and the Supreme Qualification Commission of Judges. This is an international standard.
We can talk about strengthening the conclusions of the Central Committee of the Russian Federation, but these conclusions must be overcome by the VKKS. The Public Integrity Council should be an advisory body from the public that will provide some information about the candidates. But if such information is provided, then there must be a process to overcome this conclusion.
There were common cases when the conclusions of the GRD were simply ignored.
There was a different composition of the Higher Qualification Commission. That composition could make certain mistakes. There are court decisions, including the Supreme Court, regarding certain cases. Accordingly, now, I think, this process should be balanced, it should take into account the experience of the previous composition of the VKKS, and the experience of reviewing the decisions of the VRP commission or in court.
I think everything should work fine. If we see that there are certain problems, then we will return to the institutional basis in this process.
