During the round table on “Collaboration as a challenge to the judicial system”, dedicated to search for mechanisms of appropriate response to manifestations of collaborationism in the judicial system, the High Council of Justice member Mykola Moroz emphasized that urgent and keen reaction is needed to cases of collaborationism among judges. He spoke in favor of temporarily providing the Council of the current composition with the possibility of taking decisions on issues related to shameful manifestations of collaborative activity among judges, since only the HCJ has the exclusive competence to give consent on suspension of judges from the administration of justice, to detain judges or hold them in custody.
Mykola Moroz informed that currently, given the gaps in the legislation regarding the issue of suspension of a judge from the administration of justice, the decision is made by the conference of judges. In particular, with regard to one judge, the conference of judges took decision for the duration of the ruling of the investigating judge (preventive measure in the form of bail was applied and the obligation to refrain from communicating with judges) to exclude the judge from the composition of collegiums, chambers, to cancel specialization in order to make it impossible for him to administer justice.
The full text of Mykola Moroz’s speech is offered for attention
The powers of the High Council of Justice include, in particular, the adoption of decisions on temporary suspension of a judge from the administration of justice.
At the same time, today the High Council of Justice is deprived of the opportunity to exercise its powers due to the lack of quorum.
The lack of full-fledged functioning of the HCJ during the period of martial law is especially acute, given the need for an immediate response to the actions of judges who violated the oath of a judge and engaged in collaboration activity. This is a crime in accordance with Article 111-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Unfortunately, such cases exist.
In particular, judge of the Pivnichnyi economic court of appeal was recently notified of suspicion of justifying the armed aggression of the russian federation against Ukraine and inciting collaboration activities.
By the ruling of the investigating judge, preventive measure in the form of bail was applied to him and obligation was imposed, in particular, to refrain from communicating with judges of this court, who may be witnesses in criminal proceedings.
In order to apply the restrictions established by the ruling of the investigating judge, the conference of judges of the Pivnichnyi economic court of appeal took decision temporarily, for the duration of the ruling of the investigating judge, to exclude the judge from the permanent collegiums of judges, judicial chambers of the court, and also canceled the specialization previously determined by the conference.
Thus, the conference actually made it impossible for a certain period of time to administer justice by a judge who was notified of the suspicion of committing a criminal offense.
So, in the case of the judge of the court of appellate instance, the problem was resolved by the conference of judges. At the same time, there are courts in which either there is no specialization or it is impossible to convene a conference of judges. I believe that in this case, it is possible to consider the proposal that within the specified powers, if there is an appropriate decision of the investigating judge or court in criminal proceedings, the Council of Judges of Ukraine can make decision to suspend the distribution of court cases in court and recommend the SJA of Ukraine to stop the validity of his e-signature, which will make it impossible for judge to access the court’s automated document management system.
It should be noted that such a mechanism for removal a judge from the administration of justice, who was notified of the suspicion of committing a crime, is permissible in today’s conditions, at the same time it is not inherent in judicial self-government bodies and may lead to violation of the guarantees of judicial independence.
At the same time, given that the manifestations of collaborative activities by representatives of the judicial branch hurt the authority of the judiciary, reaction to such actions should be as soon as possible in order to prevent the judge suspected of collaborating from the administration justice before the court’s verdict enters into legal force.
Since the temporary suspension of a judge from the administration of justice is one of the constitutional powers of the High Council of Justice, it is natural to grant authority temporarily (until the formation of the full composition of the High Council of Justice) to make appropriate decisions regarding traitor judges, collaborating judges with an incomplete High Council of Justice, in the absence of the established by law quorum, for immediate response to such cases.