Cherkasy judge will not be brought to disciplinary responsibility

The High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) denied LLC “Kaniv Left-bank Hunting Entity” opening disciplinary proceedings against judge of the Court of Appeal of Cherkasy region Serhiy Bondarenko.

The Human Rights Information Centre correspondent reports this from the session hall of the HQCJ.

“To reject opening disciplinary proceedings against judge of the Court of Appeal of Cherkasy region Serhiy Bondarenko following the petition of the ‘Kaniv Left-bank Hunting Entity’,” head of the qualification chamber Serhiy Kozyakov read the Commission’s decision.

Judge Serhiy Bondarenko stated during the court hearing at the Oleksandrivka District Court of Kirovohrad region that Head of the Court of Appeal of Cherkasy region Volodymyr Babenko gave instruction to two other judges from the board to rule in favor of the LLC “Kaniv Left-bank Hunting Entity”.

This company filed the claim to the Security Service of Ukraine, the Central Investigation Department of the Interior Ministry of Ukraine and the prosecutor’s office with the request to release property from the attachment and pay the material damages incurred. The law enforcers attached the assets of the company, as 22% of the share capital is owned by a person involved in misappropriation of the Ukrainian Rodovid Bank.

Two judges from the board ruled in favor of the company by voting against the decision of judge Bondarenko. However, the judge expressed the dissenting opinion in the case, which formed the basis for the new ruling of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine in favor of the state.

The company filed the complaint to the HQCJ for exceeding the case review duration for 15 days. Serhiy Bondarenko at the court hearing at the Oleksandrivsky District Court said that the case was sent to the first instance to complete drawing up as the case had had drawbacks in court ruling that should have been eliminated.

“The party, which favor the judgment was delivered in, complains against me, while the HQCJ sends this complaint to Head of the Court Volodymyr Babenko and Babenko answers to the company and the HQCJ that Bondarenko indeed violated the procedure,” judge Bondarenko said.

“When I was on vacation in August-September 2014, acting head of the court Alla Zakharova called me and said that I should come and write an explanation,” the judge said. “I was not in Cherkasy then. I told her that I would arrive in the city in about a week, on September 8, 2014. And so it happened. Nobody else knew that I was coming in Cherkasy. September 8, I came to the Court of Appeal of Cherkasy region to write explanation on the complaint. They started to demand that I give them the explanation. I said that I had repeatedly written it and now I would sent the explanation directly to the HQCJ. When Zakharova asked what I had written, I answered that I had written about what I experienced here as it was simply impossible to tolerate that any longer.”

The judge also noted that two months were given for consideration of the appeal, and consideration could be extended for another 15 days.

As a reminder, judge of the Court of Appeal of Cherkasy region Serhiy Bondarenko stated that Head of the Court Volodymyr Babenko had asked him to deliver unfair judgment in the case on the lawsuit filed by the company of Ukrainian tycoon Dmitry Firtash against teacher Oksana Yashan to evict her from the office premises. After Bondarenko had refused, he was subjected to systematic pressure.

Judge Bondarenko was deprived of his aide and was not appointed a new one, his memoranda and statements were not registered. He was made to violate the law for the trial participants to complain about him to the High Qualification Commission of Judges. Bondarenko’s car was set on fire and the unknown persons followed him near his apartment.

The Oleksandrivsky District Court repealed the decision of the prosecutor’s office of Cherkasy region to close the criminal proceedings under Part 2, Article 376 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (interference in the work of judiciary) and returned the case for additional investigation.