Proactive response to threats to the authority of justice
Measures taken on the High Council of Justice’s own initiative to safeguard the authority of justice: referrals to law enforcement, inspections of courts and automated case allocation, analysis of nationwide data and public statements.
One of the important practices I managed to introduce into the work of the High Council of Justice was taking measures to safeguard the authority of justice on the HCJ’s own initiative.
These are situations where, while exercising its other powers — above all when considering disciplinary complaints or judges’ reports of interference — the Council uncovered circumstances that went far beyond a particular disciplinary case and pointed to broader, sometimes systemic, threats to the authority of justice.
In such cases the HCJ should not limit itself to deciding the matter of an individual judge. Article 73 of the Law of Ukraine “On the High Council of Justice” makes it possible to respond to the problem itself: to refer matters to law enforcement and other state bodies, initiate inspections, demand that identified risks be eliminated, issue public statements and take other measures to protect judicial independence and the authority of justice.
The largest-scale example of this approach is the story of child-related cases.
01 Child-related cases: from individual disciplinary complaints to a nationwide analysis of court practice
This case shows best why the HCJ needs a tool for acting on its own initiative. The work began with information about a few suspicious court decisions and grew into collecting and analysing tens of thousands of cases across Ukraine, a considerable number of disciplinary proceedings, cooperation with law enforcement and a call to build an automated system for the early detection of high-risk cases.
How the problem was detected
In 2024 I noticed an extraordinarily large number of near-identical cases in the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi City-District Court of Odesa Oblast concerning the determination of children’s place of residence, a father raising a child alone and the deprivation of mothers’ parental rights.
The scale and the signs that such disputes had been artificially created were so obvious that I filed a crime report with NABU. Law enforcement subsequently exposed an organised scheme which, according to the criminal case files, involved court officials and other persons. Similar signs were also found in the Marinskyi District Court of Donetsk Oblast.
After reviewing the criminal case files and the court verdicts, it became clear that a full-fledged criminal organisation had effectively formed in the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi court, including several judges and court staff. They systematically ensured that artificially created cases were heard and literally stamped out the decisions their clients needed. This was the mass use of fabricated family disputes and court decisions that could later serve, among other things, as grounds for deferral from mobilisation or for travelling abroad.
This was no longer a question of the quality of an individual court decision. The court was turning into an instrument of an unlawful scheme. And it turned out that such cases were being heard en masse not only in this court, so a full picture from all courts was needed.
What threatened the authority of justice
Creating a fictitious dispute, making sure it reaches the “right” judge, an extraordinarily fast hearing without any real dispute between the parties and obtaining a pre-arranged decision effectively negate the very essence of justice. It is especially dangerous that during the full-scale war such decisions could be used to evade military service.
The problem simultaneously posed:
- a threat to public trust in the judiciary;
- a risk of courts being used as part of organised unlawful schemes;
- a risk of manipulation of automated case allocation;
- a risk of decisions being issued en masse without any genuine dispute;
- and, in wartime, a risk to national security.
The HCJ’s decision
By its decision of 28 August 2025 No. 1814/0/15-25, the High Council of Justice applied not a single measure but a set of systemic measures. The Council:
- referred the matter to NABU, the State Bureau of Investigation, the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and the Office of the Prosecutor General to investigate the circumstances and identify similar cases;
- initiated inspections of how the courts concerned were organised;
- called for a check of compliance with the rules of automated case allocation;
- required that information on the relevant categories of cases be collected from courts across Ukraine;
- ordered an analysis of the data received from the courts;
- tasked the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine with defining indicators of high-risk cases and building automated tools to detect them.
This was fundamentally important: the aim was not only to respond to violations already uncovered but to create a mechanism that would spot anomalies while a risky practice is still taking shape.
What the nationwide data showed
Pursuant to the HCJ decision, local courts provided a large body of data on cases concerning children’s place of residence and deprivation of parental rights. On that basis I prepared the presentation “Statistical analysis of court information on cases concerning children’s place of residence and deprivation of parental rights”.
For an in-depth analysis of claims granted in full or in part, a set of objective risk indicators was defined:
- the guardianship authority was not involved;
- the case was decided at a single hearing;
- both parties were absent from the hearing;
- no more than 21 days passed from allocation of the case to the decision;
- cases of this category were allocated to only one judge;
- similar applications had been filed with the same court.
For analytical purposes, a case was classed as “suspiciously granted” if the claim or application was granted in full or in part and at least three of the six indicators were present. This is not a finding that any particular decision was unlawful, nor an assertion that a judge committed a disciplinary or criminal offence; it is a tool for statistically detecting anomalies that deserve closer attention.
The link between the speed of consideration and the number of risk indicators was particularly telling: the faster a case was decided, the more often it met the “suspiciously granted” criteria.
The analysis also showed that the problem was not confined to the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi and Marinskyi courts. The ten courts with the most such cases included courts in Odesa, Lviv, Zakarpattia, Kyiv, Chernivtsi and other oblasts.
In other words, an initial suspicion about one local scheme led to the discovery of a systemic risk at the national level.
Disciplinary liability of judges
The HCJ’s disciplinary practice confirms that the problem is systemic. As of 12 August 2026, the High Council of Justice had decided to hold 16 judges disciplinarily liable in cases of this category: eight decisions involved a submission for dismissal, six a severe reprimand with deprivation of the right to salary supplements for three months, one a reprimand with deprivation of supplements for one month, and one a warning.
- 8 Submission for dismissal
- 6 Severe reprimand
- 1 Reprimand
- 1 Warning
Parallel criminal investigations
In parallel, law enforcement investigated possible unlawful schemes in this category of cases. Five verdicts have already been delivered regarding the events at the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi court, including against judge Boiarskyi, and the investigation concerning the Marinskyi court is ongoing.
I analysed all the materials gathered on the problems identified in cases concerning children’s place of residence, sole upbringing and deprivation of parental rights, and passed them to law enforcement for verification and proper legal assessment.
On 27 August 2026, the State Bureau of Investigation served a notice of suspicion on the head of a district court in Kyiv Oblast. According to investigators, in exchange for an unlawful benefit the judge helped obtain a decision on sole upbringing of a child that could be used as grounds for deferral from mobilisation. During searches the SBI also seized files of other similar cases and is examining the related court decisions.
This case further confirms that the problem was not local. The scheme described by the SBI shows several features that the analysis had flagged as risk indicators: artificially engineered jurisdiction, the case reaching a specific judge, the applicant’s absence from the hearing and the use of the decision in matters related to mobilisation.
Law enforcement has uncovered other ways of using court decisions in similar schemes, which also require separate analysis. For example, on 10 April 2026 the SBI announced it had exposed a scheme in Sumy Oblast in which applications were filed about wives who had supposedly gone missing and about sole upbringing of children, although the women in fact continued to live with their families. According to investigators, applications could be withdrawn repeatedly until the case reached the “right” judge; about 100 people may have used this mechanism. This and other abuses uncovered by law enforcement show that the list of risk indicators cannot be static and must be continually updated as new schemes emerge.
From the HCJ’s response to a response by the whole judiciary
An important result was that the problem stopped being a matter for the High Council of Justice alone. The statistical analysis was passed to the Council of Judges of Ukraine so that judges would be informed of the risks identified and of the significant public resonance of this category of cases.
On 12 February 2026, the Council of Judges of Ukraine adopted decision No. 8 “On the analysis of court information on the consideration of cases concerning children’s place of residence”. The Council took note of the presentation, sent the “Statistical analysis of court information on cases concerning children’s place of residence and deprivation of parental rights” to local general courts of Ukraine and recommended that judges pay attention to strict compliance with the law when hearing the relevant categories of cases.
The work on child-related cases thus went through several interconnected stages:
- detecting suspicious practices;
- disciplinary and law-enforcement responses within the competence of the bodies concerned;
- a systemic decision of the HCJ;
- collecting data from across Ukraine;
- statistically identifying risk patterns;
- informing the judiciary and setting the task of building automated analytical tools.
For me, this case is one of the best examples of what a modern HCJ function of safeguarding the authority of justice should look like: using data to identify a systemic problem, ensuring an appropriate response within its competence and building mechanisms that minimise the risk of it happening again.
02 The case of judge Illia Lonskyi
The case
Illia Lonskyi, a judge of the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa, reported to the HCJ that NABU had interfered with his work during investigative actions. The inspection did not confirm any unlawful interference. At the same time, the criminal case files contained conversations and correspondence that could indicate discussions of possible extra-procedural influence on other judges, unlawful benefits and the possibility of “settling” particular court cases.
Threat to the authority of justice
The very nature of such conversations, and the participants’ confidence that a judge’s status and personal connections could be used to influence colleagues, create the impression that court cases can be “settled” informally.
HCJ decision
The Council adopted a special public statement on zero tolerance for corruption and on judges’ duty to respond to any corruption or unlawful influence they become aware of. The statement was sent to all courts of Ukraine, and the Prymorskyi District Court was invited to discuss the circumstances at a meeting of its judges.
Outcome
The circumstances uncovered later became the subject of disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in a submission for Lonskyi’s dismissal; he was subsequently dismissed from the office of judge.
03 The case of judge Svitlana Kozina: court decisions as a tool for obtaining citizenship without grounds
The case
In the disciplinary case against Svitlana Kozina, a judge of the Rzhyshchivskyi City Court, a systematic practice was established of hearing foreigners’ applications to establish the fact that their relatives had been born or lived in Ukraine. Dubious documents, artificially created territorial jurisdiction and repeated filing of applications until they reached a particular judge were uncovered.
Threat to the authority of justice
Court decisions could effectively be used to legalise legal facts for subsequent attempts to obtain Ukrainian citizenship without grounds.
HCJ decision
The HCJ referred the matter to the Office of the Prosecutor General and initiated an inspection of how the court was organised, as well as an audit of automated case allocation in courts for this category of cases.
Outcome
Following the HCJ’s referral, criminal proceedings No. 42024000000000758 were registered on suspicion of offences under Article 358(3) and (4), Article 384(2) and Article 376-1(2) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
04 The case of judge Dmytro Makharynets: use of a document bearing signs of forgery
The case
The disciplinary proceedings established that, after a report had been drawn up against him for driving under the influence, the judge used a document claiming he had undergone a medical examination. The inspection uncovered information casting doubt on the document’s authenticity.
Threat to the authority of justice
A judge using a document bearing signs of forgery to avoid legal liability directly undermines the principle of equality before the law.
HCJ decision
The HCJ asked the Office of the Prosecutor General to register criminal proceedings and investigate the facts uncovered.
Outcome
Criminal proceedings No. 42025000000000770 were registered. Makharynets was later dismissed; according to the materials available, he has been charged with using a forged document, and case No. 569/7523/26 is pending before the court.
05 The case of judge Iryna Usatova: reliability of the electronic court file
The case
The disciplinary proceedings established that court summonses and other procedural documents meant to confirm procedural steps taken in 2024–2025 had in fact been generated in the D-3 automated court document management system only in 2026, after the decision had been delivered and the disciplinary proceedings had begun.
Threat to the authority of justice
This raised a question not only about one person’s conduct but about trust in the electronic court file and court records as a reliable reflection of the procedural steps actually taken.
HCJ decision
The Council asked the Office of the Prosecutor General to investigate the circumstances.
Outcome
Criminal proceedings No. 12026100090001337 were registered.
06 The case of judge Kyrylo Harnyk: a court file that disappeared
The case
The disciplinary proceedings revealed that the file of the case on judge Harnyk’s administrative liability under Article 130 of the Code of Administrative Offences had effectively disappeared. The court reported sending the file to the police, while according to the available materials the police received an envelope without the file itself.
Threat to the authority of justice
The disappearance of precisely the file on a judge’s possible offence objectively creates the impression that materials can be hidden to escape liability and casts doubt on the reliability of court record-keeping.
HCJ decision
The Council approached the Office of the Prosecutor General regarding the status and effectiveness of the criminal investigation and the possibility of placing it under its supervision.
Outcome
Criminal proceedings No. 12026105100000088 were registered.
07 The HCJ’s response to the materials of Operation “Femida”
The case
This practice continued after my term at the HCJ ended. After NABU and SAPO published materials on Operation “Femida”, which among other things concerned possible attempts to influence judges, court decisions and personnel processes in the judiciary, I asked the HCJ to take measures to safeguard the authority of justice.
Threat to the authority of justice
Allowing the impression to form that the content of a court decision or a judicial career may depend on informal arrangements with representatives of other branches of power or influential individuals in itself demands a clear institutional response.
HCJ decision
On 10 September 2026, the HCJ adopted a public statement to safeguard judicial independence and the authority of justice, deciding to publish it and send it to all courts of Ukraine.
Conclusion
These decisions show a gradual shift in the very approach to the HCJ’s function of safeguarding the authority of justice. From responding to the conduct of an individual judge, the HCJ moved on to identifying systemic risks, referring matters to law enforcement, inspecting the work of courts and automated case allocation, analysing large volumes of court data, searching for statistical anomalies and building prevention mechanisms.
This is best seen in child-related cases: starting from suspicious decisions of a few courts, the work led to an analysis of more than twenty thousand cases across Ukraine, 16 decisions on judges’ disciplinary liability, the handover of the materials gathered to law enforcement, the dissemination of the analysis by the Council of Judges of Ukraine and the task of building an automated mechanism for the early detection of risky court practice. Meanwhile, law enforcement continues to investigate possible unlawful schemes in this category of cases.
It is precisely this model — detect, analyse, respond within its competence and prevent recurrence — that should underpin the HCJ’s effective work in safeguarding the authority of justice.