Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
The Supreme Council of Justice 6 will consider the recommendation for an indefinite appointment of Marina Shakhovnya to the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv. Previously, the judge had issued rulings depriving participants of the Revolution of Dignity of their driver’s licenses, and the Public Integrity Council flagged problems with her declarations and integrity. Nevertheless, in November 2025, the VQC appointed Shakhovnya as meeting the position.
6 October the Supreme Council of Justice is to consider the recommendation of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding the appointment of Marina Shakhovnya to the position of judge of the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv. The meeting is scheduled for 10:00.
If the VRP supports the recommendation, the matter will be forwarded to the President of Ukraine for consideration.
For Shakhovnya, this is effectively another attempt to cement herself in the judiciary after years-long history of decisions from the Maidan era, integrity declarations, and conclusions of civil experts.
Three Maidan-era rulings
Marina Shakhovnya has worked as a judge of the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv since 2012.
Particular attention was drawn to decisions made in winter 2014, during the height of the Revolution of Dignity.
The Public Integrity Council in its materials noted that the judge, in at least three cases, held participants of protest actions administratively liable, depriving them of the right to drive vehicles for three months. The VQC, in its decision, also cited these episodes and the RDF’s position that the decisions could have been related to the persecution of protesters.
One of the most indicative cases – the case of Serhiy Sesyk.
24 January 2014 of year Shakhovnya deprived him of driving rights under Article 122-2 of the Administrative Offences Code — allegedly for not complying with a police officer’s stop demand.
However, the case materials contained significant problems. According to data analyzed by the RDF, the protocol cited different license plate numbers, and there was no evidence of who was actually driving. Nevertheless, the judge found the person guilty.
In the materials of the qualification assessment, it was noted that the RDF considered these decisions to have been made on the basis of documents with signs of falsification and that they led to punishment of individuals who had not actually committed offenses.
Later these decisions were overturned, and the participants were released from administrative liability on the basis of the law on non-punitive prosecution of Maidan participants.
What Shakhovnya told the VQC
During the qualification assessment, the judge explained that there was no information in the case materials indicating political context or involvement of drivers in protests.
In the VQC materials, her position was recorded: Shakhovnya stated that she treated these cases as ordinary administrative matters for traffic violations, and there were no data about drivers’ participation in mass acts of protest.
At the same time, the RDF reached the opposite conclusion. In the revised conclusion approved by 20 on October 2025, the Council noted that the judge did not meet the criteria of integrity and professional ethics, in particular for indicators of independence, impartiality, adherence to ethical norms, honesty, and conscientiousness.
Problems with declarations
The story does not end with Maidan-era decisions.
Already in 2018 the VQC found untrue statements that Shakhovnya included in integrity declarations for 2016 and 2017 years. In particular, it concerned statements about rulings that could fall under the criteria of the law on restoring trust in the judiciary.
The RDF in a new conclusion of 2025 year again raised this issue. In its assessment, Shakhovnya stated in the integrity declaration for 2016 year that she had not issued relevant rulings, although the VQC in its decision cited three rulings by the judge concerning participants in mass protests.
At the same time, it is important to note: in October 2018 the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the VRP refused to bring Shakhovnya to disciplinary responsibility. The VRP decision stated that the violation she committed was assessed as a mistake, not as intentional submission of knowingly false information.
Thus, formally the judge did not receive any disciplinary punishment for this episode.
However, questions of integrity later again became subject to assessment.
RDF said “not in line,” VQC — “in line”
20 October 2025 year the Public Integrity Council approved a new version of the conclusion regarding Shakhovnya, concluding that she did not meet the criteria of integrity and professional ethics. The conclusion was sent to the VQC 21 in October.
It addressed not only Maidan-era decisions and declarations.
The RDF also raised issues of untimely declaration of real estate, possible problems with passing the lustration check, circumstances of Shakhovnya’s election as head of the Podilskyi District Court, and academic integrity.
In particular, the RDF pointed to the similarity of certain fragments of Shakhovnya’s dissertation 2020 of year with a previously published work by another author.
Nevertheless, 26 November 2025 year the VQC, in plenary session, made the opposite decision.
11 of the Commission members voted “for,” four — “against.”
The Commission recognized Shakhovnya as meeting the position and recommended the VRP appoint her as a judge of the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv.
Thus, the RDF conclusion did not become an obstacle to the VQC’s recommendation.
Questions about the VQC procedure itself
Special attention is drawn to how the evaluation was conducted.
In July 2025 the VQC panel chaired by Ruslan Sidorovych forwarded the question of Shakhovnya’s compliance to the plenary of the Commission. As a result of this stage, the judge scored 675,875 points. By the panel’s decision, Sidorovych and Roman Kidisiuk voted “for,” Liudmyla Volkova — “against.”
Eventually the plenary body of the VQC 26 in November supported Shakhovnya with eleven votes to four.
This very decision now effectively gives the final say to the Supreme Council of Justice.
A story that has not yet ended
Shakhovnya was not removed from office after the Maidan-era decisions. Moreover, after several stages of qualification assessment, she received a positive decision from the VQC.
Now 6 October the VRP is to decide whether to submit to the President of Ukraine a proposal to appoint her as a judge of the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv. This issue is officially included on the agenda of the meeting.
Thus the story that began during the Maidan era today enters a new stage.
And the main question now is not only about a single judge, but about how the VRP will evaluate materials already considered by the VQC: three rulings concerning protesters, inconsistencies in declarations, RDF’s conclusion of non-compliance with integrity criteria, and the VQC’s own decision, which eventually did not find sufficient grounds for a negative conclusion.
“StopCor” will monitor the decision of the Supreme Council of Justice.
We wrote earlier: “Maidan Judge” does not handle cases, but receives 100 thousands per month: who is Judge Shakhovnya
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Від ”судді Майдану” до безстрокового призначення: як Шаховніна знову опинилася на порозі ВРП". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: NARDEP 24.
