Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
The judge who tried to annul the suspicion against a defendant in the NABU case involving 1,8 billion UAH has been given a “green light” by the HQCJ collegium to the Kyiv Appeal Court
Collegium No. 2 of the High Qualification Commission of Judges continues to form the future composition of the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
In particular, the members of the collegium gave a high score to Judge Dmytro Kratko (in the photo) and forwarded the question of confirming his ability to administer justice in the appellate court to the HQCJ in plenary session.
Who is Kratko? He is a judge of the Malovyskivskyi Court in Kirovohrad region, who became known after being seconded to the Solomianskyi Court of Kyiv, where he issued rulings in a number of high-profile criminal proceedings.
📌 In particular, Kratko opened proceedings on a defense complaint against a notice of suspicion in the NABU case about land misappropriation worth 1,8 billion UAH, even though such complaints fall under the jurisdiction of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC).
📌 In the case of former MP Mykola Martynenko, he did not extend the procedural obligations of one of the key defendants. At the same time, he himself declared renting an apartment from SE “SkhidGZK” — the company whose funds were related to that criminal proceeding.
📌 Separately, the Public Integrity Council concluded that Kratko does not meet the criteria of integrity and professional ethics.
The grounds were issues in asset declaration: the residential house has for about 18 years been listed as an unfinished construction, and information about the garage was inconsistently reflected in declarations in different years.
Despite this, collegium No. 2 of the HQCJ, composed of Liudmyla Volkova, Roman Kydysiuk, and Ruslan Sydorovych, unanimously gave the candidate quite high 712 points and submitted him for consideration by the HQCJ in plenary session.
❗️This result again raises questions about the consistency of the HQCJ’s criteria: why is the strictest approach applied to some candidates, while for others a negative PIC conclusion, asset issues, and controversial rulings do not prevent receiving a high score and continuing participation in the competition?
Subscribe
Telegram publication
