Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
In the column “something died in the forest,” the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice held Pecherskyi District Court judge Tetiana Hurtova accountable.
https://hcj.gov.ua/news/rezultaty-rozglyadu-pytan-poryadku-dennogo-zasidannya-drugoyi-dyscyplinarnoyi-palaty-146
Usually judges of this court believe in their own impunity and that the “boss” who assigns them tasks “has deals with the HCJ.”
💰But this time it didn’t work out, and they only reached an agreement with inspector Natalka Drobchak, who proposed to refuse to bring the judge to account.
🤡🐐This inspector, whom in the future we will call “konchena,” thinks it’s normal to keep a person in custody without the right to appeal because the judge takes more than two months to write the text of the ruling.
✅The chamber member—well done—used reason and pointed out that in a rule-of-law state such absurdity cannot exist.
☝️This concerns the proceedings opened by 29.04.2026 with this ruling: https://hcj.gov.ua/doc/doc/58627.
🔥The essence of the violation is classic for the Pecherskyi court: the full text of the ruling on detention or the extension of a preventive measure is prepared only after the period of that very detention has already expired.
Chronology of the absurdity:
📌18 April 2025 year Judge Hurtova in case No. 757/18104/25-k extended the detention of the suspect Roman Balykin with the alternative of bail of 60,56 million UAH until 27 May 2025 year. At the hearing only the operative part was announced.
📌The judge only managed to produce the full text of the ruling on 1 June — that is, AFTER the detention period had expired (27 May).
📌The case materials reached the appeal on 4 June. As a result, the Kyiv Court of Appeal simply closed the proceedings because the appealed ruling had already lost its force by that time.
The judge plainly deprived the person of the right to appeal, since by the time the papers were produced the detention had already been extended by a subsequent ruling.
Strangely, only a month ago we wrote about a similar case, and then the HCJ did not find grounds even to open disciplinary proceedings.
https://t.me/officeofjudicalcleansing/1273
Because they are “consistent,” or maybe it depends on the complainant…
❗️OFFICE OF CLEANSING ⚖️ SEND NEWS
🚀 Read more on our FaceBook…
Telegram publication
