Kyiv Commercial Court Judge Inna Otrosh has called for a probe into the activities of NGOs involved in judicial reform, including Human Rights Centre ZMINA

Inna Otrosh, a judge of the Kyiv Commercial Court, has appealed to the High Council of Justice and the Council of Judges of Ukraine, demanding a probe into the activities of a number of non-governmental organizations involved in judicial reform and receiving international funding, the Sudovo-Yurydychna newspaper reported. In her appeal, she accused human rights and anti-corruption initiatives – including the Human Rights Centre ZMINA – of “undermining the judicial system and national security.”

Inna Otrosh. Photo: Facebook page of Inna Otrosh

The judge stated that so-called “professional activists” allegedly systematically interfere in court activities, influence the formation of the judiciary, and discredit the justice system. She called on state authorities to conduct checks of such organizations, involving the Security Service of Ukraine, and to initiate oversight of their funding.

In her appeal, she listed a number of organizations working in the fields of human rights and anti-corruption policy. These include the DEJURE Foundation, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), “AutoMaidan,” Transparency International Ukraine, the Media Initiative for Human Rights, the ZMINA Human Rights Centre, and others.

The judge also urged an appeal to international donors to cease funding certain organizations, specifically the DEJURE Foundation, and to investigate potential corruption risks in the activities of the Public Integrity Council (PIC) members. Furthermore, she proposed either abolishing the PIC entirely or banning funding for its operations.

In her address, Otrosh also initiated the creation of a special working group to monitor the activities of non-governmental organizations involved in judicial reform and proposed excluding their representatives from the working bodies of the High Council of Justice.

She explained her position by stating that, in her assessment, activists allegedly manipulate public opinion, pressure judges, and use the media to discredit the judicial system. She claims that such actions undermine trust in justice and could pose a threat to national interests.

At the same time, the judge called on other judges in her address to report all known instances of what they consider interference in justice by activists. She believes the judicial community is not adequately responding to such actions.

Furthermore, Otrosh criticized the High Council of Justice for, in her view, failing to protect judges’ independence while simultaneously cooperating with representatives of non-governmental organizations.

In her address, she also suggested that the activities of certain organizations funded by international donors might have goals other than developing an independent judiciary, questioning the donors’ motivations.

The judge’s statement drew criticism from the expert community, as it questions the role of civil society in oversight of the judiciary and proposes investigations into human rights organizations that have worked in the fields of reform and human rights for many years.

“Is the best defense a good offense? Scandalous judge Inna Otrosh, who failed to explain the source of wealth for her apartments and luxury Lexus, is now demanding that the Security Service of Ukraine investigate the public sector. While Otrosh attempts to use the courts to overturn her own dismissal for lack of integrity, she demands that donors cut off funding for those who monitor the cleanliness of the judicial ranks,” the CHESNO Movement noted.

To provide background, on October 10, 2024, the High Council of Justice dismissed Inna Otrosh, a judge of the Commercial Court of Kyiv, after she was found unfit for the position. The dismissal was triggered by her frequent trips to temporarily occupied Crimea following its annexation by Russia.

Otrosh began her judicial career at the age of 26. She is the daughter of Inna Otrosh Sr., who headed the Pechersk Court in Kyiv during the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych. In February 2014, the elder Otrosh left for occupied Crimea and was subsequently subject to lustration.

Inna Otrosh Jr. started her career as a judge at a Luhansk court, where she was appointed in June 2013. However, just two weeks later, she submitted an application for a transfer to Kyiv. Although appointments to a Kyiv court were supposed to be competitive, Otrosh managed to bypass this procedure.

Veronika Kreydenkova, co-coordinator of the Public Integrity Council and advocacy manager at the DEJURE Foundation, noted that a common scheme used to exist: “favorites” who did not score enough points to work in prestigious courts were first appointed to positions in less prestigious ones and later transferred to Kyiv. According to Slidstvo.Info, Inna Otrosh transferred using this exact scheme. A competitive selection process was required, but she was the sole candidate for the position. Kreydenkova also emphasized that her mother’s influence, who held high-ranking positions in the judicial system for a long time, was significant.

Even before the start of her judicial career, Inna Otrosh already owned substantial luxury real estate. At age 21, she owned a house near Kyiv; at age 22, two apartments in the capital and two parking spaces; and at age 25, a Lexus automobile. Following her departure to Crimea, her mother gifted her daughter another apartment in Kyiv, measuring nearly 140 square meters. According to the Public Integrity Council, as of 2019, Otrosh owned property valued at more than 5,266,000 hryvnias.

During her interview, Inna Otrosh explained that all the property was acquired before she became a judge, and that all assets were legally obtained through her family’s income. However, Kreydenkova considers this statement contentious, arguing that the judge’s standard of living is still determined by this property, regardless of when it was acquired.

Furthermore, between 2017 and 2019, Inna Otrosh made eight trips to occupied Crimea, and in 2015, she visited Saint Petersburg twice. On March 24, 2022, already during Russia’s full-scale invasion, she posted an archival photo of a matryoshka doll from a Saint Petersburg museum on her Facebook page. During her qualification evaluation, Otrosh explained that her trips to Saint Petersburg were allegedly cultural, as she is passionate about art history.

Otrosh also explained her trips to Crimea, stating that she traveled there not as a judge but as an ordinary citizen because she needed to see a close friend. She claimed this was her personal right and saw no issue with it, even if such behavior could be interpreted as legitimizing the occupying authorities. At the same time, Otrosh categorically denied that she was facilitating the occupation in this manner. During the evaluation, she was also asked which currency she used for transactions during her trips to Crimea and Saint Petersburg, to which she replied that she used U.S. dollars.

In December 2025, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court reinstated Otrosh’s judicial status.