Attorney: Not enough time for High Council of Justice to lustrate all Maidan judges

Nearly 330 petitions to dismiss the judges, involved in harassment of Euromaidan activists, were submitted to the High Council of Justice of Ukraine. The decision on dismissal of judge due to breaking the oath was taken only in 29 cases. Sixteen judges will escape the responsibility. Meanwhile, the consideration of nearly 280 cases of judges has just begun.

This was stated by Roman Maselko, the attorney, the member of the Board of the NGO “Attorney Advisory Group.”

“If the pace of adoption of decisions by the High Council of Justice remains the same, it will take another two or three years to consider these petitions. However, as the deadline for bringing judges to justice is January-February 2017, many judges can escape punishment,” Maselko said.

In order to cleanse a judicial body, the interim commission was established in 2014. Its conclusions are considered at the meetings of the High Council of Justice. The inspection of judges had to be carried out within one year from the date of formation of its membership.

The High Council of Justice is responsible for the formation of the independent judiciary. First and foremost, it should not punish the perpetrators, but to identify and eliminate systemic violations. In particular, to establish why the judges were massively delivering unlawful judgments during the Euromaidan protests and to eliminate the cause.

After the judicial reform, the High Council of Justice received new powers, in particular, to appoint and dismiss judges. It is responsible for updating the judiciary and the restoration of confidence in the judges.

However, according to Maselko, the High Council of Justice is not ready for this. The reform has a chance to be implemented only under certain conditions.

“First, the constant public control over these processes should be carried out. Second, an effective public council of integrity should be established, which will be given real powers to influence the processes of selecting and punishing the judges. Third, five new members should be elected to the High Council of Public Justice. They must be chosen from the candidacies that would undergo public discussion and enjoy public support, trust and a have real desire to update the judicial system. These five members will be able to turn the tide in the High Council of Justice… Otherwise, there is a great risk to preserve the current system,” Maselko said.

As reported, the law on restoring confidence in the judiciary was passed on April 8, 2014. However, despite the good law, the results are deplorable, lawyer, candidate of legal sciences Nazar Fedorchuk said.

“June 2, 2016, another law was adopted – the amendments to the Constitution. However, I have serious concerns that the law will suffer the same fate,” the expert said.