Правотворець
Support
facebook

Position: First Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine (since December 2025)

Date and place of birth:

May 11

Information about relatives:
According to journalistic investigations and publications Anti-Corruption Center:

  • The family is involved in business in the occupied Crimea.
  • father received Russian citizenship after the occupation of Crimea in 2014;
  • the brothers also acquired Russian citizenship;
  • one of the brothers works in the Military Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation;

Education:

The information is being clarified

Information about work (when, where worked, in what positions):

  • worked in the prosecutor's office of the city of Kyiv;
  • in 2015–2019 — First Deputy Head of Kyiv Local Prosecutor's Office No. 7;
  • subsequently - deputy, and later first deputy head of the Kyiv City Prosecutor's Office;
  • On June 24, 2025, she was appointed Deputy Prosecutor General;
  • In December 2025, she became the First Deputy Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

Involvement in the Rusakov case:

In case No. 522/696/26 concerning doctor Vitaliy Rusakov, Maria Vdovichenko is one of the heads of the Prosecutor General's Office, within whose structure procedural management of criminal proceedings is carried out. According to representatives of the Odrex Medical House, it was the structural units of the General Prosecutor's Office subordinate to her that participated in activities that the hospital considers to be systemic pressure: initiating inspections by the Ministry of Health, attempts to revoke the license of the medical institution, and supporting procedural decisions on the suspension from work and restriction of freedom of surgeon Vitaliy Rusakov.

Odrex's lawyers have publicly stated that Maria Vdovichenko has appealed to the Ministry of Health to revoke the hospital's license. In their opinion, the Rusakov case is part of a broader campaign of pressure on the medical institution, which combines criminal prosecution of the doctor, administrative influence over the hospital, and large-scale reputational pressure.

Involvement in cases that had a public resonance (in which case was he noticed, status within this case, year, month):

1. Appointment to the position of First Deputy Prosecutor General (December 2025)

The appointment caused a significant public outcry after information about her Russian citizenship and the work of her close relatives in the Russian Federation was made public. The topic was widely covered by journalists and public organizations. (Newsroom – news from warring Ukraine)

2. Case regarding access to state secrets (2026)

Journalists reported that the SBU destroyed documents (a questionnaire) that could have contained information about her having relatives with the citizenship of the aggressor state when applying for state secret clearance. This became a subject of public discussion. (Center for Investigative Journalism)

3. Criticism from the Anti-Corruption Center

The Central Anti-Corruption Commission included Maria Vdovichenko in the list of persons whom the organization associates with pressure on anti-corruption bodies (NABU and SAPO). (Who is destroying NABU and SAPO)

*The material was prepared using analytical system YouControl

Dishonesty

(presence of circumstances indicating a probable violation by the pursuer of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption"):

No confirmed facts of dishonesty or court verdicts against Maria Vdovichenko have been found in open sources.

Disciplinary sanctions:

Scandals

Link

Who is destroying NABU and SAPO?

Center for Investigative Journalism

Maria Vdovichenko, with numerous relatives in the Russian Federation, became the first deputy prosecutor general

mass media about:

Center for Investigative Journalism

Maria Vdovichenko, with numerous relatives in the Russian Federation, became the first deputy prosecutor general

Who is destroying NABU and SAPO?

Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko appointed three deputies of the Prosecutor General

Maria Vdovichenko: from the Kyiv prosecutor's office to the top of the UCP

Position: Head of the Department for Supervision of Compliance with Laws in the Investigation of Crimes Against Life at the Office of the Prosecutor General

Date and place of birth:

May 11

Information about relatives:
wife - Tkachuk Nataliya Yevhenivna, daughter - Tkachuk Eva Dmitrievna.

Education:

The information is being clarified

Information about work (when, where worked, in what positions):

  • He has been working in the prosecutor's office since 2005. Since September 1, 2016, he has been the head of the department for supervising compliance with laws in the investigation of crimes against life at the Kyiv prosecutor's office. (kdkp.gov.ua)
  • In 2020, he was appointed/worked as the head of the department by order No. 629k dated October 28, 2020. (kdkp.gov.ua)
  • In 2025, he was listed as the head of the department of the Kyiv City Prosecutor's Office. (public.nazk.gov.ua)
  • In 2026, he was the head of the department of the Prosecutor General's Office. (YouControl)

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

In criminal proceedings No. 522/696/26 against Dr. Vitaliy Rusakov, Dmytro Tkachuk acts as the senior prosecutor and approved the indictment. His role has raised significant reservations from the defense due to signs of prosecutorial bias and possible bias. In particular, the prosecutor initiated a motion for 24-hour house arrest and suspension of Rusakov from work after the doctor returned to medical practice and began performing operations.

Furthermore, the indictment lacks a clear definition of the specific clinical protocol, norm, or professional standard that the doctor allegedly violated. At the same time, the prosecutor insists on applying strict restrictions to the accused.

In the motion to disqualify the prosecutor, the defense pointed to manipulation of the factual circumstances, ignoring Rusakov's impeccable procedural behavior, inconsistency in the interpretation of risks, and violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence. According to the defense, Tkachuk's actions indicate the use of the criminal process for the purposeful persecution of the doctor and the restriction of his right to work.

Involvement in cases that had a public resonance (in which case was he noticed, status within this case, year, month):

*The material was prepared using analytical system YouControl

Dishonesty

(presence of circumstances indicating a probable violation by the pursuer of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption"):

The declaration for 2025 indicates cash of 97,000 USD in joint ownership with his wife, as well as salary from the Kyiv City Prosecutor's Office - 898,289 UAH and from the UCP - 887,152 UAH. No confirmed facts of dishonesty were found in open sources.

Disciplinary sanctions:

Scandals

In 2023, Dmytro Tkachuk became a defendant disciplinary proceedings in the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Prosecutors. The complainant alleged that the prosecutors, including Tkachuk, improperly carried out procedural management, failed to provide an adequate response to the defense's statements, and violated the principles of objectivity and impartiality in the exercise of their powers.

Link

Decision No. 183dp-23 on the closure of disciplinary proceedings

mass media about:

Position: judge of the Administrative Court of Cassation

Date and place of birth:

The information is being clarified

Information about relatives:

Man: Kashpur Fedor Nikolaevich

Education:

The information is being clarified

Information about work (when, where worked, in what positions):

  • On June 19, 1999, she was appointed to the position of judge of the Desnyanskyi District Court of the city of Chernihiv.
  • On September 23, 2004, she was elected to the position of judge of the Desnyanskyi District Court of the city of Chernihiv for an indefinite term.
  • On March 22, 2007, she was elected as a judge of the Chernihiv District Administrative Court.
  • On May 11, 2019, she was elected to the position of judge of the Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court.

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:
The panel of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court, consisting of the presiding judge Ukhanenko S. A. and judges Kashpur O. V. and Sokolov V. M., having considered the case of Leonid Chemodanov, adopted a decision that actually legitimized a gross violation of fundamental human rights. The court legalized the deprivation of the legal residence status of a person who had been defending Ukraine with weapons in hand since 2014, based on administrative formalism and unverified information from law enforcement sources related to the aggressor state. The Supreme Court recognized as permissible the restriction of human rights without a guilty verdict, effectively ignoring the presumption of innocence and allowing the use of materials from closed criminal proceedings. The court ignored special provisions of national legislation that directly guarantee the protection and right to residence of foreign volunteers, and also refused to apply the principle of proportionality, without assessing the real threat to Chemodanov's life, freedom and security in the event of his deportation to the Russian Federation. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision sets a dangerous precedent, whereby the state effectively punishes its defenders, legalizes legal persecution through formal instructions, and paves the way for the use of the judicial system as a tool of indirect political persecution, which is incompatible with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and the practice of the ECHR.

Involvement in cases that had a public resonance (in which case was he noticed, status within this case, year, month):

*The material was prepared using analytical system YouControl

Dishonesty

(presence of circumstances indicating a probable violation by the pursuer of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption"):

Disciplinary sanctions:

Scandals

Link

mass media about:

Position: judge of the Administrative Court of Cassation

Date and place of birth:

The information is being clarified

Information about relatives:

Wife: Ukhanenko Larysa Danylivna (lawyer)

Children: Ukhanenko Anastasia Sergeevna

Education:

The information is being clarified

Information about work (when, where worked, in what positions):

  • On December 5, 2000, he was appointed a judge of the Krasnogvardiyskyi District Court of the city of Dnipropetrovsk.
  • On February 22, 2007, he was elected a judge of the Dnipropetrovsk Administrative Court of Appeal for an indefinite term.
  • Since 2019, he has been appointed as a judge of the Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court.

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:
The panel of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court, consisting of the presiding judge Ukhanenko S. A. and judges Kashpur O. V. and Sokolov V. M., having considered the case of Leonid Chemodanov, adopted a decision that actually legitimized a gross violation of fundamental human rights. The court legalized the deprivation of the legal residence status of a person who had been defending Ukraine with weapons in hand since 2014, based on administrative formalism and unverified information from law enforcement sources related to the aggressor state. The Supreme Court recognized as permissible the restriction of human rights without a guilty verdict, effectively ignoring the presumption of innocence and allowing the use of materials from closed criminal proceedings. The court ignored special provisions of national legislation that directly guarantee the protection and right to residence of foreign volunteers, and also refused to apply the principle of proportionality, without assessing the real threat to Chemodanov's life, freedom and security in the event of his deportation to the Russian Federation. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision sets a dangerous precedent, whereby the state effectively punishes its defenders, legalizes legal persecution through formal instructions, and paves the way for the use of the judicial system as a tool of indirect political persecution, which is incompatible with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and the practice of the ECHR.

Involvement in cases that had a public resonance (in which case was he noticed, status within this case, year, month):

In the materials of public control (in particular, in the opinion of the Public Integrity Council), Ukhanenko S.A. is linked to the context of the ECHR case “Lazarenko and Others v. Ukraine” as follows: during his work in the appellate administrative jurisdiction, the decision/approach of the relevant appellate court in a number of proceedings became the subject of assessment by the ECHR, and the Court found a violation of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention due to improper notification of the participants (which deprived the parties of the opportunity to fully participate in the process and implement the principle of equality of arms).

*The material was prepared using analytical system YouControl

Dishonesty

(presence of circumstances indicating a probable violation by the pursuer of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption"):

Public Council of Integrity discovered data that provide grounds for concluding that the Candidate's non-compliance with the criteria of integrity and professional ethics.

Possible non-representation of real estate: DEJURE writes that since 2011 he has owned an apartment in Dnipro (38.9 m²), which is “not listed in any declaration.” (supreme.dejure.foundation)

Questions regarding the adequacy of income for acquisitions (2007–2010): The Tax Inspectorate analyzed the purchase of a car/apartment against the background of declared income and drew conclusions about the risks of inconsistency of property status with legal income.

Mother-in-law and the purchase of two apartments (2010, 2012): The GDR's conclusion describes the mother-in-law's purchase of two apartments in Dnipro and questions her financial capacity, given the stated status/income.

Question regarding the income of a lawyer's wife: Public oversight/media materials emphasize the imbalance between the number of powers of attorney and declared income for 2015–2017. (supreme.dejure.foundation)

Disciplinary sanctions:

There is an official publication of the Supreme Judicial Council of Ukraine on the consideration of the issue of opening a disciplinary case against Judge Ukhanenko S.A.; the fragment contains the judge's explanation about the violation of Part 1 of Article 195-1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure of Ukraine due to “excessive workload”. (vkksu.gov.ua)

Scandals

The conclusion of the traffic police stated: a car driven by Ukhanenko S.A. hit a 65-year-old pedestrian; criminal proceedings were not registered; the pedestrian was found guilty of the accident; the traffic police questions the quality/completeness of the inspection and the lack of an examination at the time of the decision.

Link

  • NACP (example of a document with a list of “other documents” and the declarant’s signature): (public.nazk.gov.ua)
  • DEJURE (profile/integrity risks): (supreme.dejure.foundation)
  • GRD, conclusion on Ukhanenko (PDF, 03.02.2019):
  • Prosud (profile + aggregated data on assets/income): (prosud.info)
  • “44 Dishonest Candidates for the Supreme Court” (UP, 2019): (Truth)
  • “Who is rushing to the Supreme Court?…” (Glavcom, 2019): (HEAD)
  • Similar Russian-language material with a list (ArgumentUA, 2019): (argumentua.com)
  • ZN.ua (Russian-language analytical material criticizing the approach to the “prosecutorial” issue): (Mirror Weekly)
  • Supreme Court publications about the judge's participation in events/communications (neutral): (Supreme Court of Ukraine)

mass media about:

  • Selections/materials about “dishonest candidates” in the context of the competition for the Supreme Court (2019). (Truth)
  • Some mentions/criticism in the context of decisions/approaches on the topic of prosecutor certification (2021). (Mirror Weekly)

Position: judge of the Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court

Date and place of birth:

Born in 1981

Information about relatives:

Wife: Sokolova Alexandra Alexandrovna

Children: Sokolov Vladimir Vladimirovich, Sokolov Nikolay Vladimirovich

Education:

1998–2003: Yaroslav the Wise National Law Academy of Ukraine – received a higher legal education (qualification – lawyer).

2002–2003: Kharkiv State Academy of Urban Economy – received an economic education (qualification – economist).

Academic degree: Candidate of Law. The dissertation defense took place on 02/26/2024 in the specialty of labor law and social security law

Information about work (when, where worked, in what positions):

  • 2003–2004: Assistant Judge of the Commercial Court of Sumy Region
  • 2004–2005: worked in local government bodies (probably in Sumy region)
  • 2005–2007: private sector activities (exact positions not specified)
  • 2007–2008: practiced law (lawyer's license was suspended on 08/31/2007 due to appointment as a judge)
  • 31.08.2007: By Decree of the President of Ukraine No. 804/2007, he was appointed a judge of the Sumy District Administrative Court for a term of 5 years. He actually began administering justice in 2008.
  • 2008–2019: judge of the Sumy Administrative Court of Appeal; with 2008 He held the administrative position of deputy chairman of this court. For many years, he performed administrative functions in the court, combining them with the consideration of administrative cases.

2019 – present: Judge of the Supreme Court (Administrative Court of Cassation). Passed the open competition of 2017–2019, according to the results of which he scored 812.5 points and took 15th place among the winners of the competition for the Supreme Administrative Court of Cassation. Appointed by Presidential Decree in May 2019, took the oath of a judge of the Supreme Court and began work at the Administrative Court of Cassation.

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:
The panel of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court, consisting of the presiding judge Ukhanenko S. A. and judges Kashpur O. V. and Sokolov V. M., having considered the case of Leonid Chemodanov, adopted a decision that actually legitimized a gross violation of fundamental human rights. The court legalized the deprivation of the legal residence status of a person who had been defending Ukraine with weapons in hand since 2014, based on administrative formalism and unverified information from law enforcement sources related to the aggressor state. The Supreme Court recognized as permissible the restriction of human rights without a guilty verdict, effectively ignoring the presumption of innocence and allowing the use of materials from closed criminal proceedings. The court ignored special provisions of national legislation that directly guarantee the protection and right to residence of foreign volunteers, and also refused to apply the principle of proportionality, without assessing the real threat to Chemodanov's life, freedom and security in the event of his deportation to the Russian Federation. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision sets a dangerous precedent, whereby the state effectively punishes its defenders, legalizes legal persecution through formal instructions, and paves the way for the use of the judicial system as a tool of indirect political persecution, which is incompatible with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights and the practice of the ECHR.

Involvement in cases that had a public resonance (in which case was he noticed, status within this case, year, month):

*The material was prepared using analytical system YouControl

Dishonesty

(presence of circumstances indicating a probable violation by the pursuer of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption"):

Public Integrity Council (PIC) During the competition for the Supreme Court in 2019, it provided a negative conclusion regarding Volodymyr Sokolov's non-compliance with the criteria of integrity and professional ethics.

Disciplinary sanctions:

The information is being clarified

Scandals

In 2025, the publication "Telegraph» published an article about the “luxurious life” of Supreme Court judge Sokolov. According to the declaration for 2024, he purchased a new luxury car Audi Q5 (2023 model year) for over 2 million UAH, having already owned one Audi Q5 2019 model year (purchased in 2021 for ~1.3 million). The total income of the judge’s family for 2024 exceeded 6 million UAH (the judge’s salary alone is ~4.76 million). Sokolov also declared large cash savings of $215 thousand (over 5.8 million UAH) and 120 UAH, and in accounts – ~1.41 million UAH and $28 thousand.
The wife declared cash of 40 thousand UAH and $4 thousand.

Link

https://court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/AdminSudSumy%20818/Sokolov%20(1).pdf#:~:text=,%D0%AF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%20%D0%9C%D1%83%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE

https://news.telegraf.com.ua/

https://texty.org.ua/articles/

Declaration for 2024

mass media about:

  • "Texts": Analytical article "Not without sin: up to two-thirds of Supreme Court judges have integrity issues" (2023) – mentions that Sokolov V.M. was among the judges with a negative opinion of the GRD
    texty.org.ua.
  • "Telegraph": News "Luxurious Life: Supreme Court Judge Bought a New Luxury Car and Made Millions" (08/02/2025) – details of Sokolov's declaration for 2024, highlighting high income and the purchase of an expensive car.
    news.telegraf.com.uanews.telegraf.com.ua
  • The judge's profile (Prosud project) contains interactive data on income and assets by year —  prosud.infoprosud.info. 

Position: Prosecutor of the Office of the Prosecutor General

Date and place of birth:

09.06.1979 Place – Information is being clarified

Information about relatives:

Gorozhankin Maksym Dmitrievich (son)
Gorozhankina Viktoriya Grigorivna (ex-wife, marriage dissolved in 2015)

Education:

information is being clarified

Information about work (when, where worked, in what positions):

11.08.2016 – – appointed to the position of Senior Investigator in Particularly Important Cases of the First Department for the Investigation of Criminal Proceedings of the Department for the Investigation of Particularly Important Cases of the Main Investigation Department of the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine

05.07.2018 – prosecutor of the second department of procedural management of the department of procedural management in criminal proceedings of investigators of the central apparatus of the State Bureau of Investigation of the Department of procedural management in criminal proceedings under investigation by the State Bureau of Investigation

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:
Based on the content of the disciplinary complaint filed by the witness in case No. 367/4466/22 (case of treason three residents of Kyiv region), the following alleged violations of the law and standards of prosecutorial activity can be identified:

Prosecutor Horozhankin showed systemic passivity in the legal processHe did not ask questions of witnesses, did not make any motions, did not respond to the defense's remarks, and did not actually support the prosecution's line of argument. Such behavior contradicts the prosecutor's duties as a representative of the state prosecution.

A separate violation concerns improper handling of evidence. The witness gave him photos taken during the occupation to include in the case. The prosecutor refused to request their inclusion and gave these materials to the defense without permission, which created a risk of information leakage and violation of the witness's rights.

Its behavior in the courtroom raises doubts about objectivity and impartiality. Gorozhankin maintained informal conversations with the accused, discussed extraneous topics, demonstrating loyalty instead of procedural distance.

Also the prosecutor ignored safety risks to witnessesHe did not inform the applicant about the accused's release despite her statement about the threats, and in response to her indignation, he raised his voice, accused the SBU of incompetence, and questioned her testimony.

In general, the actions of Prosecutor Horozhankin violate the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, the Law "On the Prosecutor's Office", and standards of ethical behavior, jeopardizing not only the credibility of the prosecution, but also the very effectiveness of the trial.

Involvement in cases that had a public resonance (in which case was he noticed, status within this case, year, month):

  1. In November 2017, a senior investigator of the Prosecutor General's Office Dmytro Horozhankin closed criminal proceedings regarding a large-scale corruption scheme involving the transfer of over 300 hectares of state land of the state enterprise "Pushcha-Vodytsia" private developers, in particular Stolitsa Group.

    These are deals that could have cost the state about 200 thousand sq m of housing due to dubious investment agreements concluded without the approval of the Cabinet of Ministers.

    Journalistic investigation "Our Money" (2021) called Gorozhankin's decision key for legalization schemeHe closed the case. the next day after the developer withdrew the appeal in the related court.

    Despite attempts by the new leadership of the State Prosecutor's Office to appeal this decision, the courts sided with the prosecutor's office. Gorozhankin's actions are seen as contributed to the developer and made further investigation impossible.
  2. In addition to the case of the State Enterprise "Pushcha-Vodytsia", Dmytro Horozhankin also appears in a journalistic investigation Ukrainian truth — "How High-profile Cases Were "Drained". Secrets of the Prosecutor General's Office during the Time of Vitaliy Yarema" (December 2014 – January 2015).

    The material is about systematic closure of cases against Yanukovych's associates, in particular the former Minister of Ecology Mykola Zlochevsky. Gorozhankin is mentioned among employees of the Prosecutor General's Officewho in 2014 were involved in providing letters that effectively “exonerated” the suspect, despite the open proceedings on the fact of illegal enrichment of $23.5 million.

    These documents allowed Zlochevsky's side to lift the seizure of assets in London, and the proceedings in Ukraine were artificially transferred from the GPU to the police. Later, under public pressure, the Prosecutor General's Office did announce suspicion, but — late, when the documents needed for the defense had already been used in a British court.
  3. During the appeal hearing, Gorozhankin, acting as a prosecutor in the case of aiding an aggressor state, instead of supporting the first instance verdict, actually took the position of defense. The accused, as part of an organized group, collaborated with the company "Yuzhatomenergoproekt" LLC and through intermediaries transferred design and technical documentation for nuclear power plants in the Russian Federation (branches of the Rosenergoatom concern, which is part of the Rosatom state corporation). The prosecutor requested the application of Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and replacing the sentence of 10 years in prison with a fine of 25,000 tax-free minimum incomes. This position of the prosecutor testified to an attempt to significantly mitigate responsibility in a case involving aiding and abetting an aggressor state, despite the fact that such crimes directly encroach on the foundations of national security and require a strict and consistent response from the prosecutor's office.

*The material was prepared using analytical system YouControl

Dishonesty

(presence of circumstances indicating a probable violation by the pursuer of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption"):

Membership in Kyiv city organization “Military Auto Amateur” (7 court cases). The public organization is the ultimate beneficiary of the Collective Enterprise “Avtocomplex”, which has criminal proceedings. Also, the legal entity is registered at the address of concentrated registration. A total of 11 people are registered at the address.

Disciplinary sanctions:

The information is being clarified

Scandals

The information is being clarified

Link

https://old.gp.gov.ua/ua/rspr.html?page=85&s=print

https://old.gp.gov.ua/ua/rspr.html?page=41

Declaration for 2015

Declaration for 2016
The declaration was corrected for 2016.
Notification of significant changes in property status 2017

Declaration for 2017
Notification of significant changes in property status 2018

Declaration for 2018

Declaration for 2019

Declaration for 2020

Notification of significant changes in property status 2021

Declaration for 2021

The declaration has been corrected for 2021

Notification of significant changes in property status 2022

Declaration for 2022

Notification of significant changes in property status 2023

Declaration for 2023

Declaration for 2024

mass media about:

Investigation Our Money SE "NDVA "Pushcha-Vodytsia"

Zlochevsky thanks SAPO and GPU for closed cases

Kaleniuk: Zlochevsky thanks SAPO and GPU for closed cases

How high-profile cases were "drained". Secrets of the Prosecutor General's Office during the time of Vitaliy Yarema

Position: Chairman of the Northern Economic Court of Appeal

Date and place of birth:

information is being clarified

Information about relatives:

information is being clarified

Education:

information is being clarified

Information about work (when, where worked, in what positions):

Since 2001 - judge of the Commercial Court of Kyiv.

Since 2011, he has been a judge of the Kyiv Appeal Economic Court.

Since 2013, he has been the chairman of the Kyiv Appeal Economic Court. After the court was renamed, he has been the chairman of the Northern Appeal Economic Court.

Involvement in cases that had a public resonance (in which case was he noticed, status within this case, year, month):

The panel of judges adopted a decision that obliged the state-owned company Ukrenergo to pay over UAH 1 billion to a private entity, which caused a significant public outcry.

*Material prepared using analytical system YouControl

Dishonesty

(presence of circumstances indicating a probable violation by the pursuer of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption"):

Journalistic investigation Bihus.info revealedthat Oleg Khrypun did not declare a house in the cottage town "Vitagrad", worth over 30 million UAH, where he periodically stays.

After the publication of information about undeclared assets, the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption started checking the judge's lifestyle.

Disciplinary sanctions:

In 2020, the GDP considered a disciplinary complaint regarding gross procedural violations committed by Oleg Khrypun and other judges in the raiding case involving Avangard Invest LLC.

Scandals

In September 2024, Oleg Khrypun submitted resignation statement, which sparked public discussion about his possible avoidance of responsibility and attempts to obtain lifetime benefits.

Also Oleg Khrypun awarded former Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov with a Taurus pistol.

Link

Declaration for 2015

Declaration for 2016

Declaration for 2017

Declaration for 2018

Declaration for 2019

Declaration for 2020

Declaration for 2021

Declaration for 2022

Declaration for 2023

mass media about:

“Judge Khrypun works at the Alliance Bank” — an article about the judge's possible corruption ties.

“The head of the Kyiv court 'periodically visits' an expensive country estate, but does not declare itat" — investigation into undeclared assets.

NACP checks the lifestyle of judge Oleg Khrypun after the Bihus.Info story

Judge Khrypun may be stripped of his mantle – the Supreme Court of Justice is considering a disciplinary complaint

Double two: will the Supreme Court allow Judge Khrypun to “escape” into retirement?

Arsen's Army. Avakov's Firearms Gifts to Prime Ministers, Deputies, Judges, and Prosecutors

Position:

First Deputy Head of the National Police of Ukraine 

Date and place of birth: 

09/22/1985, Novoukrainka, Kirovohrad region

Information about relatives:

Wife: Tsutskiridze Anna Vasilievna

Daughter: Oleksandr Maksimivna Tsutskiridze

Son: Tsutskiridze Andrii Maksymovich

Education:

​​Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs

Information about work (when, where he worked, in what positions):

In 2006-2007, he worked in the practical divisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in the Kirovohrad Region as an investigator and investigator.

In 2010-2011, he held managerial positions at the Training Center for Postgraduate Education of the Educational and Scientific Institute of Management of the National Academy of Internal Affairs 

In 2011, he was appointed to the position of head of the Main Investigative Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine.

In 2013, he was the deputy head of the Main Investigative Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

Since 2015, he has been the deputy head of the Main Investigative Department of the National Police of Ukraine.

From 2017 to 2019, he was the deputy head of the Department for Ensuring the Activities of the Head of the National Police and the deputy head of the Main Investigative Department of the National Police of Ukraine.

Since September 13, 2019 — Deputy Head of the National Police of Ukraine, head of the Main Investigative Department. 

From September 2023 — First Deputy Head of the National Police of Ukraine, Head of the Main Investigative Department.

Involvement in one of the cases (which case, position at the time of involvement):

The case of Sheremet - deputy head of the department - head of the department of the Main Investigative Department of the National Police of Ukraine

The case of Ukrainian IPSO specialists - First Deputy Head of the National Police of Ukraine 

Involvement in other cases that had public resonance (in which case was noticed, status within this case, year, month):

The information is being clarified

Dishonesty

(presence of circumstances indicating a probable violation by the pursuer of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption"):

The press emphasized that the mother-in-law of the chief investigator of Ukraine, Lyudmila Zaluzhna, began to very actively buy real estate in the center of the capital. In total, she spent about five million hryvnias. At the same time, she does not have her own business or income to justify such expensive acquisitions. Tsutskiridze's mother-in-law refused to talk to journalists on this topic.

In the spring of 2018, Lyudmila Zaluzhna received an apartment in the Aristocrat residential complex, with an area of 145 square meters, with a 30% discount, having paid more than three and a half million for it. (in May 2018) In October 2019, Lyudmila purchased a utility room in the same complex with an area of 29.2 m² for UAH 700,000. And a year later - 2 parking spaces for UAH 480,000.

Disciplinary sanctions and punishments:

The information is being clarified

Scandals:

Ex-president of the Ukrbud company, former People's Deputy and figure in the case involving the seizure of 81.5 million hryvnias by the National Guard, Maksym Mykytas, claims that the current deputy head of the President's Office, Oleg Tatarov, was "influential among the investigators of the Ministry of Internal Affairs due to his closeness to the leadership." According to him, the ties remained even after Tatarov's release, but in a different status. "[The connection with the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs was traced], for example, through the godfather, colleague and compatriot Maksym Tsutskiridze, who remained in management positions in the GSU of the NPU, and a year ago headed the Main Investigative Department of the National Police, to which all investigators of the country are subordinate," said Mykytas. In his opinion, it was through Tsutskiridze that Tatarov "solved the most difficult issues", since he was his closest person in the system.
At the height of the Tatarov case, de Mykytas cooperates with NABU and is the main witness in the case. The National Police, at the top of which is Tatarov's best man - Tsutskeridze, informs Mykytas about the suspicion of kidnapping.

Link:

Declaration for 2017

Declaration for 2018

Declaration for 2019

Declaration for 2020

Declaration for 2021

Declaration for 2022

Declaration for 2023

Maksym Tsutskiridze - biography

mass media about:

Will the Head of the Main Investigative Department of the National Police Maksym Tsutskiridze save his friend, co-author and colleague Oleg Tatarov?

Shaposhnikov caught the chief investigator Avakov for a bribe

Avakov's chief investigator: Tatarov's best man with an apartment in Pechersk /// Our Money

Position: judge of the Economic Court of Kyiv.

Date and place of birth: March 5, 1962

Information about relatives:

Yulia Serhiyivna Shkurdova, daughter - since 2011, she has been working first as a secretary, and then as an assistant judge at the High Economic Court of the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

Education:

Kharkiv Law Institute named after F. E. Dzerzhinsky

Information about work (when, where worked, in what positions):

1992–2006 – arbitrator of the Arbitration Court of the Poltava Region;

2006–2011 – judge of the Military Court of Appeal of the Central Region;

Since 2011, he has been a judge of the Commercial Court of Kyiv.

Involvement in one of the cases (which case, position at the time of involvement):

Case "Kolomoiskyi v. Ukraine"

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

In February 2019, judge Shkurdova, on the second attempt, accepted the lawsuit of Kolomoiskyi and the affiliated company Triantal Investments for the return of their shares in the bank.

In April of the same year, she began consideration of the case regarding the invalidation of the sale and purchase agreement of PrivatBank to the Ministry of Finance for UAH 1 during nationalization and the return of the bank's shares to its former owners - Ihor Kolomoiskyi and Gennadiy Bogolyubov.

The court rejected the request of the Ministry of Finance, which asked to leave the statement of claim without consideration. At the same time, the National Bank of Ukraine, NKCPFR, PrivatBank, as well as custodians Ukreximbank and Solid Dnipro were added to the list of defendants.

In June 2019, the judge closed the trial. Even at the stage of preparatory hearings, state lawyers complained in the press that she often limited them in their responses. However, Shkurdova allegedly treated the plaintiffs loyally.

On October 16, 2019, Shkurdova suspended consideration of Kolomoiskyi's lawsuit for the return of PrivatBank shares pending a decision in the case in the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal.

PrivatBank stated that the appellate instance, despite the violation of the deadlines for filing an appeal by one of the defendants in the case and the operation of the so-called "anti-Kolomoi" law, actually resumed the proceedings regarding the cancellation of the nationalization of PrivatBank.

This decision immediately gave the opportunity to the judge of the Commercial Court of Kyiv Shkurdova, who suspended the case in October 2019, to resume the proceedings and declare the sale of PrivatBank invalid and return the shares to the former owners.

Then the court session on the lawsuit was postponed several times, and the defendants' motion to dismiss judge Ludmila Shkurdova was rejected.

Involvement in other cases that had public resonance (in which case was noticed, status within this case, year, month):

On November 0, 2015, it lifted the seizure of the property and monetary assets of the Eastern European Fuel and Energy Company, the owner of which is one of the "wallets" of Viktor Yanukovych's regime, Serhii Kurchenko. As part of this case, the court canceled its own decision of July 17, 2014.

Dishonesty

(presence of circumstances indicating a probable violation by the pursuer of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption"):

The information is being clarified.

Disciplinary sanctions:

The information is being clarified.

Scandals:

In 2017, Judge Shkurdova complained to the High Council of Justice and Prosecutor General Yury Lutsenko to the public about the lawsuit of the Russian bank "VTB" against the Ukrainian private enterprise for debt recovery in the amount of more than 2.185 billion UAH. It follows from her complaint that the judge did not like the fact that activists shouted "Shame!" during the hearing, and journalists published information about her on the Internet.

Link

http://www.vru.gov.ua/content/file/270-0-6-17_.pdf

Declaration for 2018

Declaration for 2019

Declaration for 2020

Declaration for 2021

Declaration for 2022

Declaration for 2023

mass media about:

The commercial court again stopped the consideration of the case on the return of shares of PrivatBank to Kolomoiskyi

The consideration of Kolomoiskyi's lawsuit against Privatbank was postponed to May 7

Back in 2016 | Privatbank - Kolomoiskyi? What happens in court for the bank: details of the closed process

What is the connection between the judges of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal and Kolomoiskyi?

Nationalization of "PrivatBank": consideration of the case was frozen until the end of May

The seizure was lifted from the Kurchenko company's property by the same judge who imposed it

Position: formerly of the Higher Economic Court of Ukraine.

Date and place of birth:

09/28/1967, Zaporizhzhia

Information about relatives:

Oksana Iosifivna Gevko (wife) - since October 2018 and until now, she works as the chief specialist of the financial department of the Ternopil District Administrative Court.

Oksana Stepanivna Litynska (cousin) - in 2015-2020, she was a deputy in the Khmeliv village council of the Terebovlyan district of the Ternopil region.

Education:

Military Institute of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR in Moscow.

Information about work (when, where worked, in what positions):

1989-1992 – head of office at the military tribunal of Kyiv.

1992-1998 – member of the Military Court of the Kyiv region.

1998-2002 – judge of the Military Court of the Central Region of Ukraine in Kyiv.

2002-2004 – judge of the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal.

2004-2017 – judge of the Higher Economic Court of Ukraine

Since April 2017, he has been the head of the High Economic Court within the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

Involvement in one of the cases (which case, position at the time of involvement):

Case "Kolomoiskyi v. Ukraine"

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

In October 2021, Judge Bohdan Lviv from the Commercial Court of Cassation in the Chamber of the Supreme Court transferred Kolomoisky's case to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Lviv has a great chance to become the head of the Supreme Court, because the previous head of the court, Valentina Danishevska, has resigned. That is, in fact, he simply transferred the matter to himself.

The judge is a friend of lawyer Ihor Kolomoiskyi, ex-head of Zelenskyi OP Andrii Bohdan.

Involvement in other cases that had public resonance (in which case was noticed, status within this case, year, month):

In 2019, Kolomoiskyi's company canceled a 40 million hryvnias fine from AMCU through the court for conspiracy at Ukrnafta auctions. One of the judges was Bohdan Lviv, judge of the Commercial Court of Cassation.

In 2019, journalist Maryna Ansiforova published an audio recording of a secret meeting of heads of commercial courts in November 2015 on the eve of the next Congress of Judges.

The meeting was chaired by Bohdan Lviv, then head of the Higher Economic Court. Currently, he is the chairman of the new Commercial Court of Cassation and at the same time the deputy chairman of the Supreme Court.

Then the Congress had to resolve three key personnel issues - to elect a judge of the Constitutional Court, two members of the High Qualification Commission and a new composition of the Council of Judges of Ukraine.

Bohdan Lviv, as if the director of the factory for the production of court decisions, told the audience who they should vote for. And he did not just inform, but demanded to take out a pen and a piece of paper and write down the necessary surnames. The judges voted as they should.

Dishonesty

(presence of circumstances indicating a probable violation by the pursuer of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption"):

The information is being clarified.

Disciplinary sanctions:

The information is being clarified.

Scandals

According to the investigation "Investigation. Info", which came out in 2016, the judge may be involved in a corruption scandal involving a member of the Constitutional Court, Pavlo Grechkivskyi. As journalists report, a member of the Supreme Council of Justice promised citizen Oleg Shklyar to resolve the issue of ensuring the adoption of the "necessary" decision by the judges of the appeal and cassation instances through the Chairman of the State University of Ukraine - Bohdan Lviv. As a reward for such "help", citizen Shklyar, according to him, was demanded $500 thousand, of which $200 thousand were assigned "for a positive decision of the Higher Economic Court of Ukraine." From personal sources, journalists learned that on the eve of the scandal, Pavlo Grechkivskyi met with Bohdan Lviv in the judge's office.

According to the conclusion of the Public Council of Integrity, the judge, acting as the Chairman of the Higher Economic Court, by his own Orders formed a panel of judges of the VHSU to consider the case, thus violating the requirements of Part 4 of Article 15 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges", which establishes that the determination of the panel of judges for consideration of a specific case is carried out by an automated document management system during the registration of relevant documents, as well as in other cases of determining the composition of the court at any stage of the process, based on the principle of randomness.

This fact became the basis on which the Supreme Court of Ukraine annulled the decision of the panel of courts of the Ukrainian State University. In particular, the decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine states that "taking into account that in the case under consideration, the panel of judges was formed in the court of cassation without the use of an automated document circulation system based on the principle of probability, the Commercial Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine came to the conclusion that the resolution of the Higher Economic Court of Ukraine dated 12.01.2015 was accepted in violation of the requirements for consideration of the case by a court established by law."

The above-mentioned circumstances were investigated as part of the criminal proceedings, however, the investigators made a decision to close the criminal proceedings.

During the inspection, the Security Service of Ukraine found out that Bohdan Lviv, the head of the Commercial Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court, received a Russian passport in 2012 instead of a document that expired in 1999.

Link

The judge's Facebook account

Declaration for 2021

Declaration for 2022

Declaration before release

mass media about:

The SBU confirmed the presence of a Russian passport in the possession of judge Bohdan Lviv

Slimy fish: how the Prosecutor General's Office lets TOP bribe-takers out of their hands

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court may play into Kolomoisky's hand in the American cases against the oligarch

ANNOUNCEMENT – The Supreme Court may play into Kolomoisky's hand tomorrow in the American cases against the oligarch

DemSokira held the 20th anniversary action under the trial against Kolomoiskyi (PHOTO)

"Kolomoisky is not worth the price." The commercial court can cancel the nationalization of PrivatBank - mass media

"Wolves" and "lions" in sheep's clothing: why the reform of the judicial system is stalling

Another Kolomoiskyi company through the court canceled a 40 million hryvnia fine from AMCU for collusion at Ukrnafta auctions

How judges vote according to the instructions of the management: an audio recording of secret meetings has appeared

The deputy head of the Ukrainian Armed Forces influenced key appointments in the courts: an audio recording appeared

The judge, who called the violation of the law "good intentions", went to the new Supreme Court

https://bihus.info/sudda-so-nazvav-porusenna-zakonu-blagimi-namirami-proisov-u-novii-verhovnii-sud

Position: member of the High Council of Justice, judge of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal

Date and place of birth: May 24, 1974, city of Rivne

Information about relatives:

There is no information about the judge's close relatives

Education:

Kyiv National University named after Taras Shevchenko

Information about work (when, where worked, in what positions):

1992 – 1993 – legal advisor of the Production and Commercial Enterprise "Olga", Rivne region.

1997 – 1998 – legal advisor of the Limited Liability Company "Manufacturing Enterprise "Ukravtobud" in Kyiv.

1999 – 2000 – responsible secretary of the judicial panel for review of decisions, resolutions, resolutions of the Supreme Arbitration Court of Ukraine.

2000 – 2002 – specialist of the 1st category of the secretariat of the board for the preparation of materials for supervisory proceedings of the Higher (arbitration) commercial court of Ukraine.

2002 – 2004 – assistant judge of the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine.

2004 – 2008 – judge (from 04.2009 – indefinitely) of the Economic Court of Kyiv region.

2008 – 2011 – judge of the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal.

2011 – 2018 – judge of the Higher Economic Court of Ukraine.

2018 – judge of the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal (the court ceased operations on October 3, 2018).

In June 2019, it was transferred to the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.

Involvement in one of the cases (which case, position at the time of involvement):

Case "Kolomoiskyi v. Ukraine"

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

On December 9, 2020, the panel of judges of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal actually resumed the proceedings regarding the cancellation of the nationalization of PrivatBank, the bank's press service reported.

Judges Vitaly Korsak, Olga Popikova and Oleksiy Yevsikov annulled the decision of the judge of the Kyiv Commercial Court Larisa Shkurdova dated October 16, 2019 to stop the proceedings in case No. 910/1834/19.

"The appellate instance, despite the violated deadlines for filing an appeal with one of the defendants in the case and the operation of the so-called "anti-Kolomoi" law, actually resumed the proceedings regarding the cancellation of the nationalization of PrivatBank. These are the consequences that may result from the further consideration of the case filed by Igor Kolomoiskyi and TRIANTAL INVESTMENTS LTD (a Cypriot company that owned one of the largest blocks of shares in PrivatBank before its nationalization and is owned by Kolomoiskyi and Bogolyubov) regarding the illegality of the PrivatBank purchase agreement and the demand for shares pending consideration of another the lawsuit of Ihor Kolomoisky — on the recognition of the illegal nationalization of PrivatBank, which is currently being considered by the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal (case No. 826/7432/17)," Privatbank said.

These judges, despite the violation of the deadlines for filing an appeal and the operation of the so-called "anti-Kolomoi" law, actually resumed the proceedings regarding the cancellation of the nationalization of PrivatBank.

Involvement in other cases that had public resonance (in which case was noticed, status within this case, year, month):

In May 2021, the Canadian company TIU Canada demanded the removal of Popikova, Korsak and Yevsikov of the judges of the Northern Court of Appeal. They are considering the case of illegal disconnection of the solar power plant from the networks of JSC "Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant" (NZF)".

TIU Canada explained that judges Korsak, Popikova and Yevsikov previously ruled in favor of Igor Kolomoiskyi, who controls NZF, in the case against the state-owned PrivatBank.

Therefore, foreigners assume that judges will not be able to objectively consider the case related to this. the company

The president of TIU Canada, Michael Yurkovich, quoted by the press service, believes that it is impossible to count on an impartial hearing of the case when the judges have a track record of decisions in favor of the oligarch who is under US sanctions.

In May, all three judges recused themselves.

Disciplinary sanctions:

The information is being clarified.

Dishonesty

As reported by the Bigus.Declarations portal, the amount of monetary assets of the declarant (in particular, for 2016) and the family is 10+ times higher than the sum of all incomes of the declarant and the family.

Scandals

According to the rating CORRUPT.UA "Top 10 millionaire judges" for 2016, took the third place among the representatives of the judiciary, who declared the most cash, namely - UAH 6,899,725.

Link

Declaration for 2021

Declaration for 2022

Declaration for 2023

mass media about

The court resumed consideration of Kolomoiskyi's lawsuit to cancel the nationalization of PrivatBank

TIU Canada requests the removal of judges of the Northern Court of Appeal in the case of disconnection of the NZF of its SES

A Canadian investor sued Kolomoisky National Insurance Fund due to the shutdown of a solar power plant

Three judges in the case concerning the disconnection of the NZF of the TIU Canada solar power plant have recused themselves

Position: judge of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.

Date and place of birth: September 17, 1968.

Information about relatives:

Fadeeva Vlasta Yuriivna, wife

Fadeeva Nina Mykolaivna, mother-in-law - from 2010 to 2014, a member of the Higher Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine. Since 2015, he has been practicing law.

Education:

National Academy of Internal Affairs, Kyiv State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages, KNEU named after Hetman

Information about work (when, where worked, in what positions):

1993-2001 – held the positions of middle and senior management of the Main Department of the State Field Service.

2001-2004 – worked in various positions (specialist, assistant judge, head of the department for ensuring the work of the court chamber) in the Higher Commercial Court of Ukraine.

2004-2008 – judge of the Commercial Court of Kyiv.

2008-2011 – judge of the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal (in 2009 elected indefinitely).

2011-2018 – judge of the Higher Economic Court of Ukraine (terminated on 15.12.2017) (2014-2018 deputy secretary of the First Judicial Chamber).

2018 – judge of the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal (in 2018, the court was liquidated by presidential decree).

In October 2019, he was transferred to the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal.

Involvement in one of the cases (which case, position at the time of involvement):

Case "Kolomoiskyi v. Ukraine"

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

On December 9, 2020, the panel of judges of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal actually resumed the proceedings regarding the cancellation of the nationalization of PrivatBank, the bank's press service reported.

Judges Vitaly Korsak, Olga Popikova and Oleksiy Yevsikov annulled the decision of the judge of the Kyiv Commercial Court Larisa Shkurdova dated October 16, 2019 to stop the proceedings in case No. 910/1834/19.

"The appellate instance, despite the violated deadlines for filing an appeal with one of the defendants in the case and the operation of the so-called "anti-Kolomoi" law, actually resumed the proceedings regarding the cancellation of the nationalization of PrivatBank. These are the consequences that may result from the further consideration of the case filed by Igor Kolomoiskyi and TRIANTAL INVESTMENTS LTD (a Cypriot company that owned one of the largest blocks of shares in PrivatBank before its nationalization and is owned by Kolomoiskyi and Bogolyubov) regarding the illegality of the PrivatBank purchase agreement and the demand for shares pending consideration of another the lawsuit of Ihor Kolomoisky — on the recognition of the illegal nationalization of PrivatBank, which is currently being considered by the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal (case No. 826/7432/17)," Privatbank said.

These judges, despite the violation of the deadlines for filing an appeal and the operation of the so-called "anti-Kolomoi" law, actually resumed the proceedings regarding the cancellation of the nationalization of PrivatBank.

Involvement in other cases that had public resonance (in which case was noticed, status within this case, year, month):

In May 2021, the Canadian company TIU Canada demanded the removal of Popikova, Korsak and Yevsikov of the judges of the Northern Court of Appeal. They are considering the case of illegal disconnection of the solar power plant from the networks of Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant JSC."

TIU Canada explained that judges Korsak, Popikova and Yevsikov previously ruled in favor of Igor Kolomoiskyi, who controls NZF, in the case against the state-owned Privatbank.

Therefore, foreigners assume that judges will not be able to objectively consider the case related to this. the company

The president of TIU Canada, Michael Yurkovich, quoted by the press service, believes that it is impossible to count on an impartial hearing of the case when the judges have a track record of decisions in favor of the oligarch who is under US sanctions.

In May, all three judges recused themselves.

Disciplinary sanctions:

The information is being clarified.

Dishonesty

(presence of circumstances indicating a probable violation by the pursuer of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention of Corruption"):

The information is being clarified.

Scandals

In 2018, the judges of the Higher Economic Court who worked under the leadership of Viktor Tatkov, who was suspected of illegal interference in the automated case distribution system and wanted by the Prosecutor General's Office, entered the competition for the new Supreme Court.

"Schem" journalists found a decision from 2013, in which one of the parties to the process draws the attention of the then-presiding judge Yevsikov to the violation that the composition of judges of the appellate instance was not determined according to the rule - that is, with the help of a computer system. At that time, Yevsikov did not see this as a violation, referring to the decision of the judges at the meeting, which allowed bypassing the automatic distribution of cases.

The ex-judge himself, when asked by journalists if he knew that there was a system to bypass the automated distribution of cases in the High Commercial Court during the time of President Yanukovych, answered briefly: "There were no complaints from lawyers. (…) Understand, I also have a reputation."

In 2019, the Public Integrity Council published an opinion on the activities of the judge. He used family connections to make a career. In addition, the members of the State Administrative Court had questions about the judge's wealth. Members of the Council decided that Yevsikov does not meet the criteria of a judge who can work in the Supreme Court.

Link

Conclusion on non-compliance of the candidate with the criteria of integrity and professional ethics

Declaration for 2021

Declaration for 2022

Declaration for 2023

mass media about:

The court resumed consideration of Kolomoiskyi's lawsuit to cancel the nationalization of PrivatBank

TIU Canada requests the removal of judges of the Northern Court of Appeal in the case of disconnection of the NZF of its SES

A Canadian investor sued Kolomoisky National Insurance Fund due to the shutdown of a solar power plant

Three judges recused themselves in the TIU Canada solar power plant shutdown case

https://chesnosud.org/candidate/yevsikov-oleksij-oleksandrovych

Judges who worked under the "Tatkov scheme" do not regret it, but they strive to get into the new Supreme Court - "Schemes"

Judges of the Supreme State Court turned out to be millionaires and owners of expensive real estate (photo of estates)