Public Integrity Council “sweeps” dubious candidates who are eager to join the Supreme Court
On the morning of April 13, the Public Integrity Council (PIC) handed over the first 25 negative opinions on the candidates, who compete to join the Supreme Court, to the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJU).
As reported by reporter of the Human Rights Information Centre, at the same time activists held a rally at the HQCJU. They symbolically swept the doorstep of the Qualification Commission from dishonest candidates participating in the contest to the Supreme Court.
On April 21, the next stage in the competition will take place – the interview of candidates. At least 11 of the 16 members of the HQCJU must vote for the candidate in order for an applicant to be interviewed.
Having examined the information on the candidates, the PIC believes that the following applicants may not be admitted to the position of a judge of the Supreme Court:
- Yukhymenko Ruslana Ivanivna
- Ulyanov Ruslan Anatolievych
- Sytnykov Oleksandr Fedotovych
- Podkopaev Sergiy Vasylovych
- Marynchak Ninel Yevhenivna
- Kolomyc Viktoriia Viktorivna
- Zhdanova Valentyna Serhiivna
- Hryshyn Hennadii Anatoliiovych
- Holiashkin Oleh Volodymyrovych
- Vovk Pavlo Vyacheslavovych
- Biletska Liudmyla Mykolaivna
- Baranets Oleksandr Mykolaiovych
- Azevych Volodymyr Bronislavovych
- Aleinikov Volodymyr Oleksandrovych
- Bershov Hennadii Yevhenovych
- Borysiuk Inna Eduardovna
- Golosii Rostislav Anatolievych
- Hrytsiv Mykhailo Ivanovych
- Yelfimov Oleksandr Vasylovych
- Kozyr Tetiana Pavlivna
- Holubytskyi Stanislav Saveliiovych
- Narizhny Sergiy Yurievych
- Prysiazhniuk Oksana Vasylivna
- Stanik Serhii Romanovych
- Chernobay Oleh Ivanovych
- Shvetsova Larysa Anatoliivna
According to Halina Chyzhyk, Coordinator of the Public Integrity Council, the affiliates of the PIC will interview the candidates by asking them additional questions.
“We hope that the members of the HQCJU will not only take into account our conclusions, but in accordance with their methodology will give a score of 0 to those candidates, who received a veto from the public for their righteousness. Which means that they will cease their participation in the contest”, – she said and added that she hopes that the HQCJU will not ignore the veto from the public.
AutoMaidan’s lawyer Roman Maselko said that the PIC prepared the conclusions on the basis of official documents or reports from authoritative organizations and individuals who were subsequently checked again.
He notes that for the first time the public received a legal mechanism that has consequences on the judiciary.
“For the first time we received a legal mechanism. Not meetings, not burnt tires, but conclusions about the incompatibility of candidates for the position of judge in the Supreme Court. The key thing that the HQCJU must do is to form a judicial staff, which will be trusted. It is hard to imagine how we can trust the people, who were deemed by 20 people as such who do not meet the criteria of decency based on proven facts”, – he said.
Roman Maselko named the cooperation between the Public Integrity Council and the High Qualification Commission of Judges as difficult.
“We are put in a tight time limit and it is challenging to keep up with this timeline. Just yesterday we received information about who of the candidates are being interviewed on April 21. And tomorrow is the last chance for the council to make conclusions on them. We knew nothing about them yesterday. We reserve the right to publicly demand for an additional time to prepare the conclusions if they will put us in such conditions again. Especially since the HQCJU publicly promised this”, – said Roman Maselko
He added that public organizations are ready to withdraw from the competitive process if they see that the competition is dishonest or it is impossible to ensure a competitive process.
“We are ready to work at night. But if we see that it is pointless we will be ready to withdraw from the competitive process”, – added the lawyer of the AutoMaidan.
The PIC insists on the importance of transparency of the competition. They demand from the HQCJU to disclose the contents of exam tasks, the texts of candidates’ written works and the methodology for their evaluation. In addition, they ask to disclose how each member of the Commission has rated the tasks.
The Public Integrity Council complains that the HQCJU hides the declarations of candidates for previous years, complaints about them, a list of people who recommended the candidates and family ties of the candidates.