During January-March 2022, the HCJ received 64 reports on interference in the professional activities of judges in the administration of justice and actions that violate the guarantees of independence of judges or undermine the authority of justice. Taking into account the notifications received in previous periods, since the beginning of 2022, the Council has considered 47 reports.
By results of consideration of 15 reports on interference in the activities of judges in the administration of justice, 14 decisions were made on taking response measures:
- appeals to prosecutor’s office and law enforcement bodies to provide information on disclosure and investigation of crimes;
- submission to the relevant bodies or officials on discovery and bringing to responsibility of persons committed or allowed to act inaction, etc.
Having considered 32 reports of judges, the Council took 8 decisions on approval of 22 opinions of the HCJ members on absence of grounds for taking measures to ensure independence of judges and the authority of the justice.
For the same period in 2021, the HCJ received 84 reports on interference in the professional activities of judges in the administration of justice and actions that violate the guarantees of independence of judges or undermine the authority of justice. There were considered 95 reports (including notifications received in previous periods).
In total, during 2021, the Council received 275 reports on interference in the professional activities of judges in the administration of justice, actions that violate the guarantees of independence of judges or undermine the authority of justice. This information can be found in the Information and Analytical Report on the activities of the High Council of Justice in 2021.
Last year, the most common grounds to appeal to the HCJ with reports on interference were:
• putting psychological pressure on a judge (sending appeals, complaints, publishing and disseminating false information, insults and threats in the courtroom, etc.) – 247 appeals;
• opening criminal proceedings, carrying out investigative actions, bringing to administrative responsibility – 33 appeals;
• blocking the work of a court (unauthorized protests, impeding access to the workplace of a judge, damage to court property, etc.) – 17 appeals;
• putting physical pressure on a judge and his/her relatives, damaging their property – 3 appeals;
• under other grounds – 5 appeals.
A noteworthy point is that in some reports several grounds are indicated by reports of interference in the activities of a judge in the administration of justice.
It should be reminded that the independence and inviolability of judges are guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. Article 376 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides for criminal liability for interference in any form in the activities of a judge in order to hinder the exercise his/her official duties or to obtain an unjust decision.