Position:

Judge of the Supreme Court (dismissed due to resignation)

Date and place of birth: 

The information is being clarified

Information about relatives:

The information is being clarified

Education:

The information is being clarified

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

1993 – 1997 – judge of the Pecherskyi District Court of the city of Kyiv.
1998 – 2011 – judge of the Kyiv City Court.
2011 – 2018 – judge of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases.
2018 – 2023 – judge of the Criminal Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court.

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

August 5, 2020 The Supreme Court consists of judges Serhiy Stanislavovych Slynko, Oleksandr Marchuk, Oleg Pavlovich Mohylny refused Sternenko to change the jurisdiction of the case and transfer it for consideration to one of the courts of Kyiv due to the presence of danger to Sternenko's life and health during the consideration of the case in Odesa.

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

The information is being clarified

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"):

Opacity of wealth. According to the information contained in conclusion According to the Public Integrity Council, Judge Slynko's family acquired a significant amount of real estate and valuable movable property, however, as noted in the conclusion, the declared amount of income for the judge's family over the past 5 years amounted to $145,000. This, in the opinion of the Public Integrity Council, gives grounds to assert that the judge's lifestyle does not correspond to the declared income.

Disciplinary sanctions and punishments:

The information is being clarified

Scandals

Making questionable decisions:

1) According to the data registry court decisions in 2014, Judge Slynko S.S. was part of the panel of judges that decided to leave unchanged the sentence of Dmytro and Serhiy Pavlychenko to life imprisonment and 13 years in prison, respectively, on charges of murdering the judge of the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv, Serhiy Zubkov. It should be noted that this sentence raises some doubts. In particular, as informs According to the publication "Ukrainska Pravda", witnesses questioned during the trial of this case stated that they did not recognize the defendants as the murderers and doubted that the investigators correctly recorded their words in the relevant protocols. Other evidence confirming the Pavlychenkos' guilt is also questionable. 

 2) According to the register of court decisions and information from the website "RBK-Ukraine" in 2013, Judge Slynko S.S. was the presiding judge of the panel of judges that considered in the cassation instance the criminal case against Lutsenko Y.V. for allegedly illegally celebrating the Police Day in the "Ukraine" palace. The cassation instance confirmed the legality of the verdict of the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv, by which Lutsenko Y.V. was sentenced to 4 years in prison. As can be seen from statements High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President of the European Commission Catherine Ashton and European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Štefan Füle, the verdict of Lutsenko and the trial as a whole were regarded by European institutions as not meeting international standards for a fair, transparent and independent trial.

In addition, in the resolutions of the European Parliament of 09.06.2011. and from 05/14/2012. it was noted that the previous report of the Danish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights on the cases of Lutsenko and Korniychuk cited a large number of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, the trials against other high-ranking officials from the former government are unacceptable and are a manifestation of selective justice, and also expressed concern about the increase in selective persecution of political opposition figures in Ukraine and recognized Lutsenko as having been convicted for political reasons.

Link:

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2989-17#Text

https://grd.gov.ua/wp-content/uploads/data/files/conclusions/05_05_2017/vysn/slynko_vysn.pdf

Declaration for 2022

Declaration for 2023

mass media about:

Supreme Court Competition: What's Wrong with the Winners

“Judge in a new way”: dishonest future judges of the “transparent” Supreme Court

The “black spot” of Ukrainian justice: the Pavlichenko case

The Supreme Court of Ukraine refused to grant Yuriy Lutsenko's cassation appeal (video)

The Wicked Thirty

Position:

Judge of the Kyiv Court of Appeal

Date and place of birth: 

The information is being clarified

Information about relatives:

In accordance with declaration of family ties of the judge for 2012-2016:
Mokareva Natalia Mykhailivna (niece of the judge) – from 2006 to 2012 she worked as the head of the personnel department in the territorial department of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine in Poltava region. Before that, during July-November 2012 she worked as the head of the staff of the Mashiv district judge of Poltava region, and during 2012-2016 – as the deputy head of the staff of the Court of Appeal of Poltava region. Since 08.04.2016 she has been working as the head of the staff of the Court of Appeal of Poltava region.

Education:

The information is being clarified

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

2005 – 2011 – judge of the Holosiivskyi District Court of Kyiv (from 2010 year elected judge for an indefinite term);
2011 – 2018– Judge of the Kyiv City Court of Appeal
2018 - including - a judge of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.

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

July 3, 2020 the board of judges of the Kyiv Court of Appeals consisting of Valery Mykolayovych Lashevych, Mykola Anatoliyovych Yashchenko, Ivan Oleksiyovych Rybak refused to satisfy the defense's complaint and left Serhiy Sternenko under 24-hour house arrest.

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

The information is being clarified

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

1. As seen from registry court decisions and information According to the UkrInform publication, Judge Rybak was part of the panel of judges that dismissed the appeal of the defense of People's Deputy Boryslav Rozenblat against the court's decision to seize part of his property.
   Let us remind you, for message According to the UkrInform publication, the court previously seized part of the property of Rosenblatt, whom the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine suspects of receiving bribes from a representative of a foreign campaign for assistance in the extraction of amber.
    
   2) How informs public activist Vitaliy Shabunin from the “Anti-Corruption Center” in March 2017, Judge Rybak was part of the panel of judges that reduced bail for the head of PJSC "United Mining and Chemical Company" Ruslan Zhuryl, detained by NABU, from UAH 100 million to UAH 12 million. For information from the web portal “Our Money”, the Jury is accused of causing losses to the state-owned enterprise in the amount of more than 300 million UAH.
    
   3) By information According to the website “PROSUD”, Judge Rybak was a member of the panel of judges that decided leave unchanged decision Solomyanskyi District Court of Kyiv on the election of Roman Nasirov, the suspended head of the State Fiscal Service, who suspect in causing damage to the state in the amount of UAH 2 billion, a preventive measure in the form of detention for a period of two months with the possibility of posting a bail of UAH 100 million.

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 and punishments:

The information is being clarified

Scandals

1) According to the website Texts.org.ua, Judge Rybak was part of the panel that failed to take action to prevent the escape of the commander of the Berkut unit Dmytro Sadovnyk, who is suspected of killing 39 people on the Maidan, namely, during the week of consideration of the case, no coercive pretext was applied to Dmytro Sadovnyk, who did not appear at the court session. As can be seen from the ruling of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, the panel postponed the consideration of the appeal 4 times regarding the ruling of the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv on changing the preventive measure for Dmytro Sadovnyk from detention to house arrest on the grounds of the illness of the defense lawyer or Dmytro Sadovnyk himself. At the same time, as informs lawyer of the relatives of the fallen heroes of the Heavenly Hundred Pavlo Dykan, the documents provided were not enough to make a decision to postpone the court session. As a result, the panel of judges was only able to make a decision almost two weeks after the appeal was received and, accordingly, after Dmytro Sadovynyk's escape decision on the election of a preventive measure in the form of detention for Dmytro Sadovnyk. 

2) According to register of court decisions and information According to the publication “Dzerkalo Tyzhnia”, Judge Rybak was the presiding judge of the panel of judges that considered in the appellate instance the criminal case against Lutsenko Y.V. for allegedly illegally celebrating the Police Day in the “Ukraine” palace. The appellate instance confirmed the legality of the verdict of the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv, by which Lutsenko Y.V. was sentenced to 4 years in prison. As can be seen from statements High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Vice-President of the European Commission Catherine Ashton and European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Štefan Füle, the Lutsenko verdict and the trial as a whole were regarded by the European institutions as not meeting international standards for a fair, transparent and independent trial. In addition, in the resolutions of the European Parliament of 09.06.2011. and from 05/14/2012. it was noted that the previous report of the Danish Helsinki Committee for Human Rights on the cases of Lutsenko and Korniychuk cited a large number of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, the trials against other high-ranking officials from the former government are unacceptable and are a manifestation of selective justice, and also expressed concern about the increase in selective persecution of political opposition figures in Ukraine and recognized Lutsenko as having been convicted for political reasons.

Link

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1305/2005#Text

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3615-17#Text

https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/2972018-25054

https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/42004916

Kyiv judge releases Berkut officer suspected of killing three Maidan protesters

THE COURT OF APPEALS UPHELD LUTSENKO'S SENTENCE TO 4 YEARS IN PRISON

Declaration for 2021

Declaration for 2022

Declaration for 2023

mass media about:

CHESNO Movement on judges who will consider the appeal in Nasirov's case

And who is Judge Nasirov?

Position:

Judge of the Kyiv Court of Appeal

Date and place of birth: 

The information is being clarified

Information about relatives:

The information is being clarified

Education:

The information is being clarified

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

1996–1999 – Deputy Chairman of the Military Court of the Kalyniv Garrison;

1999 – 2010 – judge of the military court of the Central Region;

2010 – 2018 – Judge of the Kyiv City Court of Appeal

2018 – present – judge of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.

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

On July 3, 2020, the panel of judges of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, consisting of Valeriy Mykolayovych Lashevich, Mykola Anatoliyovych Yaschenko, and Ivan Oleksiyovych Rybak, refused to satisfy the defense's complaint and left Serhiy Sternenko under 24-hour house arrest.

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

The information is being clarified

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"):

Opacity of wealth: in declarations for 2019 There is no information about the availability of movable and immovable property.

Disciplinary sanctions and punishments:

In 2019, he was brought to disciplinary responsibility by the High Council of Justice.

Scandals

In February 2016, Judge Lashevych, as part of the panel of judges, participated in the consideration of the issue of changing the preventive measure of Gennady Korban, as a result of which a preventive measure in the form of detention was applied to G. Korban. However, already in July 2016, considering this case also as part of the panel of judges, the judge, together with them, decided to apply a preventive measure in the form of house arrest to Gennady Korban, about this informs “Ukrainian Truth” portal.

As well as informs According to the Ukrainska Pravda portal, in November 2016, Judge Lashevych presided over the panel that released from custody and chose a preventive measure in the form of house arrest for one of the “Berkut officers” accused of the murders on February 18 in the area of Kriposny Lane/Shevchenko Park. According to the website “ZIK”, we are talking about Oleksandr Belov, who is suspected of murdering three Maidan activists: Serdyuk Ihor, Shapoval Serhiy, and Kishchuk Volodymyr (died from gunshot wounds).

According to the website Texts.org.ua, Judge Lashevych was also part of the panel that failed to take action to prevent the escape of the commander of the Berkut unit, Dmytro Sadovnyk, who is suspected of killing 39 people on Maidan, namely, during the week of consideration of the case, no compulsory detention was applied to Dmytro Sadovnyk, who did not appear at the court hearing.

In April 2011, a judge on the panel of judges decided to extend the detention period Yuriy Lutsenko. Lutsenko later demanded that Judge Lashevych and other judges from this panel be held accountable.

As reported by a public activist Vitaly Shabunin from the “Anti-Corruption Action Center” on March 9, 2017, a trio of judges Rybak, Rosik and Lashevych reduced the bail from UAH 100 to UAH 12 million for the NABU suspect – Martynenko’s manager at the OGHC Zhuryla, who is accused of causing losses of over UAH 300 million.

VGO “Bohdan Khmelnytskyi Association” drew attention to the violation of procedural law by Judge Lashevych and his colleagues during the open court session.

Link

A Kyiv judge has released a Berkut officer suspected of killing three Maidan protesters. DETAILS

Declaration for 2021

Declaration for 2022

Ddeclaration for 2023

mass media about:

CHESNO Movement on judges who will consider the appeal in Nasirov's case

The Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice will consider 90 complaints against judges

Court releases Berkut member suspected of Maidan killings

Position:

judge of the Shevchenkiv District Court of the city of Kyiv

Date and place of birth: 

04/06/1979, Kyiv

Information about relatives:

Kateryna Petrivna Chernyakova (mother of the wife) - since 2010, she has been working as the secretary of the Chernyakhov Village Council of the Yagotyn District of the Kyiv Region.

Education:

The information is being clarified

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

2007– 2011 – judge of Yagotinsky district court of Kyiv region;

2011 - including - judge of the Shevchenkiv District Court of Kyiv (from 2012 elected to the position of judge indefinitely).

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

investigating judge in the Sternenko case

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

The information is being clarified

Involvement in other cases that had public resonance (in which case was noticed):

1. As reported by the publication "Ukrainian Pravda", in December 2011, Judge Bugil conducted a criminal case against Tax Maidan activists who were accused of damaging the cobblestones on Independence Square in the fall of 2010. The case was closed already after Yanukovych fled, only at the end of March 2014.
2. As reported by the publication "Censor-NOT", judge Bugil chose a preventive measure in the form of bail in the amount of UAH 22,940 for the athlete from Bila Tserkva Vadym Titushko (Romania), who on May 18, 2014 attacked journalists Olga Snitsarchuk and Vlad Sodel.
3. As reported by the publication "Ukrainian Pravda", in November 2011, judge Bugil ruled resolution on the closing of the criminal case against the judge's assistant Natalya Solovei, who, being in a state of alcoholic intoxication, hit Svetlana Teterevkova, the mother of three children, to death with a jeep. As stated in resolution, the basis for closing the criminal case and releasing the accused from criminal responsibility was the corresponding submission to the investigators based on Law of Ukraine "On Amnesty in 2011".
4. As informs NGO "Anti-corruption Center", on February 14, 2019, judge Bugil presided over the panel of judges, which decided decision about the seizure of 300,000 dollars of Roman Nasirov, the ex-head of the State Fiscal Service, which are on his account in the Bank of Great Britain. We will remind that the detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine accuse Roman Nasirov of abuse official position regarding the provision of illegal installments of tax payments to companies associated with People's Deputy Oleksandr Onishchenko, who is currently hiding from the investigation abroad. As a result of these decisions, the Nasir state suffered losses in the total amount of more than UAH 2 billion.

Dishonesty

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

Opacity of wealth

1) In the declaration for 2014 year, there is no information about whether the judge or his family has the right of ownership or the right to use real estate in which one can live permanently. The legislation obliges to declare real estate owned by the judge and members of his family as private property or leased or with other right of use. Thus, the judge should declare the housing in which he lives (uses) on any grounds.   

2) In the declaration for 2014 year there are no data on the apartment with a total area of 51.2 sq.m., the right of use of which was acquired on 15.09.2011, as stated in the electronic declarations for 2015 and 2016 years

• Making questionable decisions As can be seen from conclusion Judge Bugil of the Temporary Special Commission for Reviewing Judges of Courts of General Jurisdiction chose a preventive measure in the form of detention for two months against the journalist of "Road Control" and Euromaidan activist Andrii Dzindza in connection with the events that took place during the protest action on December 1, 2013 along the street Bankova in Kyiv. In addition, Judge Bugil issued two decisions authorizing the search of the premises belonging to the Euromaidan activist Kadura. The temporary special commission arrived conclusion, that the selection of preventive measures in the form of detention against Dzindzi A.I. contradicts the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. It was also established that the decrees on conducting searches do not meet the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. However, the Supreme Council of Justice did not agree with conclusion Temporary special commission and decided, that the said conclusion does not contain sufficient arguments that would call into question the objectivity and impartiality of judge Bugil V.V. during the consideration and making of court decisions in the cases concerning Dzindzi and Kadura and were grounds for his dismissal from office for violating the judge's oath . According to the results of the review by the High Council of Justice, was refused in submitting a submission to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to dismiss Bugil from his post for violating the judge's oath.
• Violation of rights and freedoms As reported Radio Svoboda, judge Bugil accused Andrii Dzindzi's lawyer Victor Smaliy of an attempt on his (the judge's) life during the hearing in the Dzindzi case. Based on the testimony of the judge, Smalia was detained and remanded in custody for 2 months.
• Unethical behavior The declaration of integrity, which judges must submit annually, contains information on making decisions on choosing preventive measures in the form of detention, leaving them unchanged, extending the term of detention, convictions against persons who were participants in mass protests in the period from November 21, 2013 until the day this Law of Ukraine "On Restoring Confidence in the Judiciary in Ukraine" enters into force, in connection with their participation in such actions. However, Judge Bugil is in his own declarations of integrity pointed out that he did not make such decisions, despite the fact that he is a judge was accepted a decision to apply a preventive measure in the form of detention to a participant in protest actions. Thus, the judge was provided with inaccurate information in the declaration of integrity.

Disciplinary sanctions and punishments:

The information is being clarified

Scandals

As reported by the publication "Ukrainian Pravda", in December 2011, Judge Bugil conducted a criminal case against Tax Maidan activists who were accused of damaging the cobblestones on Independence Square in the fall of 2010. The case was closed already after Yanukovych fled, only at the end of March 2014.

As reported by the publication "Censor-NOT", judge Bugil chose a preventive measure in the form of bail in the amount of UAH 22,940 for the athlete from Bila Tserkva Vadym Titushko (Romania), who on May 18, 2014 attacked journalists Olga Snitsarchuk and Vlad Sodel.

As reported by the publication "Ukrainian Pravda", in November 2011, judge Bugil ruled resolution on the closing of the criminal case against the judge's assistant Natalya Solovei, who, being in a state of alcoholic intoxication, hit Svetlana Teterevkova, the mother of three children, to death with a jeep. As stated in resolution, the basis for closing the criminal case and releasing the accused from criminal responsibility was the corresponding submission to the investigators based on Law of Ukraine "On Amnesty in 2011".

As informs NGO "Anti-corruption Center", on February 14, 2019, judge Bugil presided over the panel of judges, which decided decision about the seizure of 300,000 dollars of Roman Nasirov, the ex-head of the State Fiscal Service, which are on his account in the Bank of Great Britain. We will remind that the detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine accuse Roman Nasirov of abuse official position regarding the provision of illegal installments of tax payments to companies associated with People's Deputy Oleksandr Onishchenko, who is currently hiding from the investigation abroad. As a result of these decisions, the Nasir state suffered losses in the total amount of more than UAH 2 billion.

Link

Declaration for 2020

Declaration for 2021

Declaration for 2022

Declaration for 2023

mass media about:

Aunt judge

Judges are the "heroes" of our time

Smalia, who defended the journalist Dzindzu, is being tried without a crime - the lawyers

Who judges Medvedko and Polishchuk for the murder of Buzyna?

The judge's assistant who crushed the mother of three children was released under amnesty

Position:

Judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv. In September 2023 released in connection with the submission of a resignation letter.

Date and place of birth: 

The information is being clarified

Information about relatives:

Danko Viktor Dmytrovych (father of the judge) - from 2010 to 2015, he was a deputy of the Kalyniv settlement council of the Vasylkiv district of the Kyiv region.

Education:

The information is being clarified

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

2003 – 2011 – judge of the Vasylkiv district court of the Kyiv region (2009 – elected to the position of judge of the Vasylkiv district court of the Kyiv region for an indefinite term);

2011 - t.h. - transferred to the position of judge of the Pechersk District Court of the city of Kyiv.

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

She rejected the request of Andrii Antonenko's defense to change the preventive measure.

She was a judge in the lawsuit filed by the former adviser to the Secretary of the National Security Council Serhiy Sivokha and People's Deputy Maksym Buzhanskyi against the representatives of the National Corps, Yury Kapla, Oleksandr Demydov, and Serhiy Tamarin. The lawyers filed a lawsuit to impeach the judge.

Violation of legislation within the framework of the case:

The information is being clarified

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

Judge Vita Bortnytska not only ordered the organization to remove all information about Martynenko from the website, but also forbade publishing any data about the criminal proceedings until the guilty verdict is made public. Regardless of whether it is new testimony in the case or just news about the appointment of another court session, the "Anti-Corruption Center" cannot publish or distribute anything.

By message on the website Korespondent.net, judge Bortnytska ruled decision on the application of preventive measures in the form of detention with the possibility of bail in the amount of UAH 293,000 to the judge of the Economic Court of Kyiv, Lyubomir Holovatyuk, who is suspected of receiving a bribe in the amount of $10,000 dollars.

According to the data of the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, on January 19, 2018, Judge Bortnytska ruled decision about the seizure of the accounts of offshore companies, which, according to the investigation, received funds from the purchase of the so-called "Boyka towers". By information According to the website "Court Reporter", in 2011 JSC "Chornomornaftogaz" purchased two offshore drilling rigs for the amount of $800 million with their actual cost $389 million. The offshore companies "Highway Investment Processing LLP" and "RIGAS KUGU BUVETAVA" became the suppliers. According to the investigation, these campaigns are linked to the Katsub family, which has close relations with ex-regional leader and current head of the "Opposition Bloc" parliamentary faction, Yuriy Boyk. At one time, while holding the position of Minister of Energy, Mr. Boyko contributed to the acquisition of the named drilling rigs, which caused losses to Chornomornaftogaz in the amount of more than $400 million.

In the summer of 2021, she was appointed as a judge in the case against veterans Igor Chepkasov and Oleksandr Pogrebyskyi, who are being tried for allegedly throwing an egg at a deputy from the OPZZH Voloshyn.

On January 6, 2022, it seized the property of the 5th President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko.

Dishonesty

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

Opacity of wealth

According to the declaration for 2014 year, there is no information about whether the judge or her family has the right of ownership or the right to use real estate in which one can live permanently. The legislation obliges to declare the real estate objects owned by the judge and her family members as private property or leased or under other right of use. Thus, the judge should declare the housing in which she lives (uses) on any grounds.

Making questionable decisions

As can be seen from the resolution of the High Council of Justice, judge Bortnytska issued two resolutions (in the cases No. 757/26252/13-k and No. 757/26253/13-k) on the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention to two activists of the rally "For European integration" in front of the House of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine at the address of Kyiv, str. Hrushevsky 12/2. As stated in Lustration list of Euromaidan, the mentioned resolutions concerned O. D. Matyash and V. S. Blagodarny. At the same time, O. D. Matyash is a disabled person of the 3rd group, received from the beatings of "Berkut" a closed cranial brain injury, concussion, numerous bruises of the soft tissues of the face and chest. Ten people's deputies appealed to the judge with petitions to take them on bail, but the judge rejected the petition.

Disciplinary sanctions and punishments:

Was brought to disciplinary responsibility The Supreme Council of Justice

Scandals

Journalists found out, that the current deputy head of the Office of the President, Oleg Tatarov, was the supervisor of Bortnytska, who defended her thesis for the degree of candidate of legal sciences.

Link

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/802/2003#Text

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1029-17#Text

https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/245/2011#Text

Vita Bortnytska is a criminal in a cloak and an enemy of Ukraine

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

Declaration for 2020

Declaration for 2021

Declaration for 2022

Declaration for 2023 (before release)

mass media about:

I wrote my dissertation at Tatarov: what is known about Judge Bortnytska

The judge of the Pechersk District Court blocks the possibility of an appeal regarding the defense of the chairman of DV Bank

Matyas and Blagradnoy are locked up in the pre-trial detention center on November 27, 2013

A Kyiv judge suspected of corruption was ordered to be arrested and bailed

The court refused to suspend the head of "Information Court Systems" Zhivaev

How the court helped Rosenblatt, a figure in the amber case, to defend himself from NABU

Judge Bortnytska of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv was sent to the "Peacemaker" base for "destroying the judicial system of Ukraine" and "fabricating cases"