From Maidan to a “Double Debt”: How Judge Vitaliy Ukrayinetz Is Moving Toward a “Promotion”

Judge Vitaliy Ukrayinetz

The head of the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv is known for notorious rulings against Maidan participants and in favor of corrupt officials, and also for an “invisible” cottage in the capital’s suburbs that did not appear in his declarations. Will he succeed in obtaining a new position — in the Kyiv Court of Appeal — after a new scandal over double recovery of a debt from an entrepreneur?

Does lying in declarations not obstruct a career?

Persecution of Euromaidan participants, “getting off the hook” for a minister’s son suspected of corruption, ties to Medvedchuk and the Russian defense industry, failure to declare elite construction near Kyiv. Can one imagine a person with such a “record” administering justice in a country that for the fifth year repels full-scale aggression and for more than a decade has been carrying out judicial and anti-corruption reforms? And administering justice not just anywhere, but heading one of the key capital courts of first instance while still successfully seeking a “promotion” — to the Kyiv Court of Appeal?

The question, of course, is rhetorical. The answer is in a post by the Anti-Corruption Action Center (AntAC), published 20 October, which concerns the head of the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv, Vitaliy Ukrayinetz. Anti-corruption activists reported that the notorious “Maidan judge” recently passed an interview with panel No. 2 of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ), received a high score, and is moving forward in the competition for the desired position — judge of the capital’s appellate court. Despite a negative opinion from the Public Integrity Council (PIC), his candidacy will be considered by the plenary HQCJ, and if approved, will be forwarded to the High Council of Justice (HCJ), which in turn will send it to the president for signature.

“Now the key question: will Ukrayinetz get the ‘green light’ from the full HQCJ? If so, the public should be shown the evidence that removed doubts. At stake is trust in the Kyiv Court of Appeal and in the competitive procedure that forms its composition,” AntAC warns.

Recall that earlier, in March this year, anti-corruption activists published a high-profile investigation about Vitaliy Ukrayinetz. The head of the Solomianskyi court was found to own property in the village of Stari Bezradichi near Kyiv — 0,12 hectares of land bought in 2020 for 130 thousand UAH (approximately $358 per hundred square meters). On this plot, since 2021, the judge has been building an elite cottage. Experts estimated the cost of the work at $150 — $200 thousand — far more than the declared savings of Vitaliy Ukrayinetz’s family for that period. In addition, the judge “forgot” to list the expensive unfinished construction in declarations for 2021–2025, as required by law. He corrected this only after speaking with an AntAC journalist: hastily amended the declaration for 2025 exactly three hours after the phone call. The purchase of the land itself is not entirely clean either; its market value starts at several thousand dollars per hundred square meters. The elite land in the capital’s suburbs where the judge is building figures in a National Police criminal proceeding No. 42025112340000284 concerning its possible seizure from the Kozyn forestry. Ukrayinetz bought it from the garden association “Druzi,” connected to Daniil Pryvalov — the son of the late Kharkiv mayor Hennadiy Kernes.

The cottage of Judge Vitaliy Ukrayinetz in the village of Stari Bezradichi near Kyiv. Photo: AntAC

Following that investigation, AntAC journalists in March asked the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), and the HQCJ to assess these facts legally. Anti-corruption bodies have so far remained silent. Meanwhile, the High Qualification Commission of Judges on 2 September held a session where it decided to check Vitaliy Ukrayinetz’s integrity declarations for 2023 and 2024, setting a six-month deadline. Nevertheless, as we already know, ordering an extraordinary review did not prevent the judge from successfully advancing in the competition for a position in the Kyiv Court of Appeal conducted by the HQCJ.

“Pay twice”: the scandalous ruling in a debt case

Can dubious schemes and lies in declarations coexist with fair, impartial, and professional performance of a judge’s duties? The answer seems obvious. But let’s examine more closely the professional side of Vitaliy Ukrayinetz’s activity — how he tends to administer justice. To avoid going far, let’s turn to one of the recent cases presided over by the head of the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv. It ended with the defendant’s party filing a complaint to the High Council of Justice requesting disciplinary action against the judge: the complaint dated 19 October states that Vitaliy Ukrayinetz grossly violated procedural norms and issued an illegal, unfounded, and unreasoned decision.

From the verdict of 21 September 2026 we learn the circumstances of the dispute. The parties were two Kyiv entrepreneurs who on 22 April 2024 concluded a loan agreement: the first lent the other $443 665 — for 12 months at 18% per annum. The obligation was secured by the borrower transferring corporate rights in two companies to the lender; the charter capital of those companies included 16 real estate objects. Their value, according to appraisal reports, was $1195 thousand. It was stipulated that after the loan was repaid, the Deed of Acceptance — transfer of the stake in the charter capital would automatically be annulled and the corporate rights would return to the borrower.

However, the entrepreneur delayed loan repayment and on 3 June 2025 returned only part of the debt — $200 thousand. But a few days earlier the lender had replaced the directors of the two companies, personally headed them, and completely removed the borrower from their management. In effect, by doing so he himself repaid the borrower’s debt, even with a significant overpayment. Despite this, in August the lender went to the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv demanding that his former debtor pay an additional $327,5 thousand: allegedly the companies that passed into his ownership do not count as loan repayment, so the loan remains unpaid and the borrower must pay the remaining sum (except $200 thousand) plus interest, a financial penalty for delay, and indexation.

While the trial was ongoing, the plaintiff managed to dispose of 5 real estate objects that had previously belonged to his debtor. Their value fully covered the “debt” that the lender continued to insist existed. He himself confirmed this fact when answering questions during a hearing on 11 May 2026 in a parallel case heard by the Commercial Court of Kyiv. One would think such an admission is ironclad evidence for the defendant and that the dispute would be resolved in his favor. But Judge Vitaliy Ukrayinetz thought otherwise.

The servant of Themis plainly ignored the key evidence in the case — the protocol and video recording of the hearing on 11 May with the plaintiff’s “admission.” At the hearing on 9 September 2026, when the court was examining evidence, Judge Vitaliy Ukrayinetz reviewed only part of the materials and then… immediately moved to final arguments. At the request of the defendant’s representative to examine the remaining evidence, he refused. During the case, the judge deliberately concealed and distorted important facts. As a result, predictably he issued a ruling in favor of the plaintiff, deciding that the debtor must pay the lender again $237 117 and 83 577 euros. The decision text contains no mention of the key evidence — the video of the entrepreneur’s admission that he effectively repaid the debt. Nor is there an explanation why the judge decided to ignore that argument entirely.

Such actions are a direct violation of the Civil Procedure Code (in particular, arts. 213 and 229), which obliges a judge to examine all evidence directly during a court hearing. Will he be held accountable for such arbitrariness? The answer must be provided by the High Council of Justice.

Maidan and the “backpacks”: a history of impunity

According to data on the HCJ website, at least two disciplinary proceedings were previously initiated against Vitaliy Ukrayinetz — in 2018 and 2019. In both cases, the High Council of Justice refused to hold the judge accountable. In the second case the HQCJ demanded punishment — for lies in the integrity declaration for 2016, where Ukrayinetz hid his involvement in the persecution of participants of the Revolution of Dignity. Thus, on 13 February 2014 the judge of the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv (Ukrayinetz has served in this position since 2007) fined citizen Oleksandr Yakymenko, whom the police accused of participating “in a column with Euromaidan symbols” during a rally near the presidential residence “Mezhyhirya” on 29 December 2013. According to the Public Integrity Council’s conclusions, such rulings at that time were issued on direct orders from the Yanukovych Presidential Administration. As the “Maidan judge,” Vitaliy Ukrayinetz should have fallen under the law “On Purification of Power” (better known as the lustration law), yet he emerged unscathed — first hiding this fact in his judicial declaration, and then receiving indulgence from the HCJ, and in 2019 he was re-certified by the High Qualification Commission of Judges.

A few years earlier the Solomianskyi District Court judge “became famous” nationwide for releasing the son of the then Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov, Oleksandr Avakov, whom NABU suspected of embezzling 14 million UAH in purchases of backpacks for the National Guard. On 1 November 2017 Judge Vitaliy Ukrayinetz refused to place Avakov Jr. under arrest, as the prosecution requested, instead imposing personal obligation with wearing an electronic bracelet and surrender of his passport. Two months later the judge quietly did not extend even those restrictions for Avakov Jr.

Trial of Oleksandr Avakov in the “backpacks” case. 1 November 2017. Photo: TSN

But this is far from the last scandal involving Vitaliy Ukrayinetz. As the mentioned Anti-Corruption Action Center established, his wife Olha Ukrayinetz after the start of the full-scale war as an attorney represents in courts the interests of AGC Flat Glass Ukraine — the subsidiary of the Japanese conglomerate AGC. Until 2022, the Ukrainian company actively cooperated with its Russian “sister” AGC Flat Glass Klin, whose assets include “Klin Glass Plant” and “Borsky Glass Plant” — suppliers of armored glass for Russian army armored vehicles, which are under international sanctions.

The story of Vitaliy Ukrayinetz shows what can result from the absence of proper accountability in the judicial system. The servant of Themis avoided punishment after the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, was forgiven for notorious rulings favoring corrupt officials and lies in declarations. Instead, he headed one of the key capital courts and now seeks promotion to the appellate instance. It is hard not to recall the famous phrase: “One born to crawl cannot fly.” Although, as we see, in the domestic judicial system even that rule sometimes does not apply.

As a result — Mr. Ukrayinetz continued to act with impunity, hiding behind a judge’s robe, which manifests in “not loud” cases but in matters like the one described above — where the fates of ordinary people, including small and medium entrepreneurs, are decided. As we see, judicial impunity breeds injustice, which in turn deepens citizens’ disillusionment with the judicial system.

Overcoming it is the responsibility of judicial oversight bodies — the HQCJ and the HCJ. They face an important task — to stop covering their own and start protecting the system from those who cross the line.