Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
The High Council of Justice 6 October supported submitting a proposal to the President of Ukraine to appoint Maryna Shakhovnina to the position of judge of the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv. All 13 members of the HCJ who took part in the secret vote voted for her candidacy.
The decision was made despite years of warnings from the Public Integrity Council regarding the judge, in particular because of her decisions from the time of the Revolution of Dignity, her integrity declarations, and other circumstances that the PIC considered to cast doubt on Shakhovnina’s compliance with criteria of integrity and professional ethics.
The “Stop Corruption TV” film crew attended the HCJ session.
13 votes “for”
On 6 October the HCJ considered the recommendation of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding the appointment of Maryna Shakhovnina as a judge of the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv.
As a result of the secret vote the decision was supported by 13 HCJ members. There were no votes “against.”
Thus, the High Council of Justice agreed with the conclusions of the HQCJ, which as early as 26 November 2025 recognized Shakhovnina as fit for the position and recommended that she be appointed judge permanently.
The HCJ’s submission must now be sent to the President of Ukraine. Only after the head of state makes the corresponding decision will the appointment procedure be completed.
“These are not perfect cases”: what Shakhovnina said about Maidan
One of the central issues at the session were Shakhovnina’s decisions from the time of the Revolution of Dignity.
As StopKor already wrote, in the winter of 2014 year the judge in at least three cases deprived participants in protest actions of the right to operate motor vehicles. Some materials in those cases, according to the Public Integrity Council’s assessment, contained significant contradictions.
During the HCJ session Shakhovnina stated that she had not experienced any political or other pressure.
“No pressure was exerted on me. There was no political or other vested interest in these cases,” the judge said.
At the same time she acknowledged that the decisions cannot be called flawless.
“Of course, these are not perfect cases, and I admit that. Of course, it was necessary to investigate all these circumstances more thoroughly and examine the case materials, and I understand that today,” Shakhovnina explained.
According to her, insufficient examination of case materials, in her opinion, does not indicate that the decisions were made under pressure.
Criminal proceedings and police reports
HCJ members also asked the judge about criminal proceedings related to reports and protocols of law enforcement officers that were used in cases against protesters.
Shakhovnina confirmed that she had been summoned to give explanations, but noted that because of the long time that had passed she does not remember all the details.
“Almost all of our court were summoned, and we gave explanations regarding the materials from the reports and protocols. Honestly, after the consideration of these materials 12 years have passed,” she said.
Earlier the PIC drew attention to the fact that some documents in the cases against protesters might show signs of falsification. In particular, there was mention of inspector Koshovyi’s reports and those of other law enforcement officers.
One of the most indicative was the case of Serhii Sesyk. On 24 January 2014 year Shakhovnina deprived him of the right to drive a car under article 122-2 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses – for alleged failure to comply with a police officer’s order to stop.
At the same time, the case materials contained contradictions regarding the vehicle’s license plate, and, according to the PIC, there was no proper evidence of who was actually behind the wheel.
Later such decisions were overturned, and protest participants were relieved of administrative liability in accordance with the legislation on preventing persecution of Maidan participants.
Nine years without powers
Separately during the session they discussed what Shakhovnina did during the period when she could not exercise judicial powers.
The judge spoke about work at the National School of Judges of Ukraine, methodological and scientific activities. According to her, since 2016 year she has participated in the preparation of educational materials, worked on the Commentary to the Code of Judicial Ethics, and was involved in developing the Case Classifier.
Shakhovnina also reported defending a dissertation.
At the same time academic integrity of her scientific work became one of the issues raised by the PIC. In its conclusion the Council pointed to similarities of certain fragments of Shakhovnina’s dissertation 2020 year with the work of another author.
The judge also stated that since 2022 year she transfers part of her funds to assist the Armed Forces of Ukraine and volunteer organizations. During the session she provided the relevant confirmations.
Van Cleef for 30 hryvnias?
Aside from direct consideration of the judge’s professional activity, journalists’ attention was drawn to her appearance.
Shakhovnina was wearing earrings that visually resembled the popular Vintage Alhambra model from Van Cleef & Arpels. The cost of original jewelry from that brand can reach hundreds of thousands of hryvnias.
A StopKor journalist directly asked the judge how these accessories reconcile with her official income and statements about substantial donations to the Armed Forces.
Shakhovnina denied that the earrings are expensive branded jewelry.
“They are costume jewelry that costs 30 UAH. If you want, I can give them to you. Know that they are inexpensive, up to 100 UAH,” the judge replied.
Thus, the question of the cost of the jewelry remained at the level of Shakhovnina’s own explanation: in her words, they are not Van Cleef & Arpels pieces but inexpensive costume jewelry.
PIC – against, HQCJ – for
Maryna Shakhovnina has worked as a judge of the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv since 2012 year.
Her activities during Maidan have repeatedly been the subject of assessment. The PIC pointed, in particular, to three rulings regarding protest participants, problems with integrity declarations, questions about property, academic integrity, and other circumstances.
The Council also drew attention to integrity declarations for 2016 and 2017 years. In them Shakhovnina denied making decisions that could fall under the criteria of the law on restoring trust in the judiciary.
At the same time, in October 2018 the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ refused to bring the judge to disciplinary responsibility for this episode. The decision stated that the violation was regarded as a mistake, not as a deliberate submission of knowingly false information.
In October 2025 the PIC again concluded that Shakhovnina does not meet criteria of integrity and professional ethics.
However, on 26 November 2025 the plenary composition of the HQCJ adopted the opposite decision. 11 members of the Commission voted to recognize Shakhovnina as fit for the position; four were against.
Today the HCJ also supported her candidacy – with 13 votes “for” and none “against.”
The materials will now be sent to the President of Ukraine. If the head of state signs the corresponding decree, Maryna Shakhovnina will be able to return to exercising judicial powers in the Podilskyi District Court of Kyiv.
We wrote earlier: the “Maidan judge” does not preside over cases but receives 100 thousand per month: who Judge Shakhovnina is.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "”Тиску не було”: ВРП одноголосно підтримала призначення ”судді Майдану” Шаховніної, яка позбавляла протестувальників прав". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: NARDEP 24.
