Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
VCCS member Serhiy Chumak nevertheless commented on the decision to transfer OASK judges, along with other Commission decisions that have not provoked such resonance.
We provide his position on this issue for balance of opinions:
“I also cannot fail to mention the decision that caused some public resonance. It is the submission to the High Council of Justice of recommendations to transfer six OASK judges, who successfully passed the qualification assessment, to the Kyiv District Administrative Court.
Anyone who reads the provisions of Article 82-1 and point 61 of the final provisions of the Law of Ukraine 'On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges' will understand that the Commission simply carried out what is written in the Law. Within the competence and procedures for which the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (VQCJU) is responsible, there are no complaints against these judges. Issues of criminal proceedings or disciplinary cases do not fall within the competence of the VQCJU. The VQCJU’s position is simple: a judge who has the authority to administer justice should work and exercise that authority, not merely receive a judicial salary.
My personal position is that revolutionary expediency should have no place in the activities of judicial governance bodies; everything should take place exclusively within the prescriptions of current legislation. And the legislation says that a judge who has successfully passed the qualification assessment is transferred to another court of the same level and specialization without a competition.
By the way, the High Council of Justice may still disagree with the VQCJU’s recommendations, as quite often happens.”
