Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
The head of Kyiv’s Solomianskyi District Court, Vitaliy Ukrayinetz, is continuing his candidacy in the competition for a judge position at the Kyiv Court of Appeal, despite the Public Integrity Council issuing a negative opinion on his candidacy and the High Qualification Commission of Judges initiating a review of his declarations. New allegations against the judge concern a ruling in a loan dispute, under which the plaintiff obtained a repeated recovery of funds from an entrepreneur, the Anti‑Corruption Center reported 20 October.
According to the Anti‑Corruption Center, Vitaliy Ukrayinetz passed an interview with collegium No. 2 of the HQCJ and received a high score, media report. The next stage is consideration of his candidacy by the commission’s plenary membership. If the HQCJ supports the judge, a submission for appointment must be sent to the High Council of Justice, and after its decision — to the president. The Anti‑Corruption Center stresses that the Public Integrity Council’s negative opinion has not halted Vitaliy Ukrayinetz’s progress in the competition. The anti‑corruption organization urged members of the HQCJ plenary to explain what evidence dispelled doubts about the candidate’s integrity. According to the Anti‑Corruption Center, the commission’s decision will matter not only for Vitaliy Ukrayinetz’s career but also for trust in the competitive procedure for forming the Kyiv Court of Appeal.
In March the Anti‑Corruption Center published an investigation into the judge’s real estate in the village of Stari Bezradychi in the Kyiv region. According to the organization, in 2020 Vitaliy Ukrayinetz purchased there a plot of land measuring 0,12 hectares for 130 thousand UAH. Since 2021 a cottage was under construction on it, the cost of which experts consulted by the investigators estimated at 150–200 thousand dollars. The Anti‑Corruption Center claims that construction expenses significantly exceeded the savings the judge’s family declared for the corresponding period. In addition, the organization reports that Vitaliy Ukrayinetz did not list the unfinished object in his declarations for 2021–2025. He amended the declaration for 2025 after a phone call with an Anti‑Corruption Center journalist — roughly three hours later.
Investigators also raised questions about the land purchase. The plot, according to the Anti‑Corruption Center, is cited in National Police criminal proceeding No. 42025112340000284, which is checking a possible seizure of lands of the Kozyn forestry. The seller was the gardening association “Druzi” (Friends), which the organization links to Daniil Pryvalov, son of the late Kharkiv mayor Hennadiy Kernes.
After the investigation was published, Anti‑Corruption Center journalists contacted NABU, NACP and the HQCJ asking them to verify the facts presented. According to the organization, at the time of its report there had been no public response from the anti‑corruption agencies. Meanwhile, in 2 September the HQCJ decided to carry out a verification of Vitaliy Ukrayinetz’s integrity declarations for 2023 and 2024. The commission allotted six months to this procedure, but it did not prevent the judge from participating in the appeal court competition.
The new claims regarding Vitaliy Ukrayinetz’s professional activity are related to the Solomianskyi District Court decision of 21 September 2026. After that decision, the defendant’s side filed a disciplinary complaint with the High Council of Justice on 19 October, asking to hold the judge accountable for alleged violations during the consideration of a loan dispute.
According to the case materials, on 22 April 2024 two entrepreneurs entered into a loan agreement for 443,665 thousand dollars for one year at 18% per annum. Repayment was secured by transferring to the creditor corporate rights in two companies that owned 16 real estate objects. Their value in appraisal reports was set at 1,195 million dollars. Under the agreement terms, after loan repayment the corporate rights were to be returned to the borrower.
On 3 June 2025 the entrepreneur repaid the creditor 200 thousand dollars. A few days earlier the creditor had changed the directors of both companies and became their head himself, removing the borrower from management. In August 2025 he filed a claim in the Solomianskyi District Court seeking recovery of a further 327,5 thousand dollars, arguing that the transfer of corporate rights did not constitute loan repayment.
While the dispute was pending, the creditor had already sold five real estate properties that previously belonged to the borrower. As the defendant’s side notes, the proceeds from the sold property covered the amount of the debt the plaintiff continued to demand. The Anti‑Corruption Center reported that the creditor confirmed the fact of the sale at a hearing of the Commercial Court of Kyiv on 11 May 2026 in a parallel case.
The defendant’s side claims that Vitaliy Ukrayinetz did not examine the minutes and video recording of that hearing, even though they contained the plaintiff’s explanations about the property’s disposition. According to the complainant, at the hearing on 9 September 2026 the judge refused to consider some evidence and moved on to closing arguments. In the decision of 21 September the court ordered the defendant to pay 237 117 dollars and 83 577 euros. The complainant believes that Vitaliy Ukrayinetz did not provide reasons explaining why he did not take into account the video recording of the commercial court hearing.
In its petition to the High Council of Justice, the defendant’s side refers, in particular, to articles 213 and 229 of the Civil Procedure Code, which regulate direct examination of evidence and recording of court hearings. The High Council of Justice must assess whether violations and grounds for disciplinary responsibility exist. Filing a complaint itself does not establish a judge’s guilt.
Allegations against Vitaliy Ukrayinetz have arisen before. According to the High Council of Justice, in 2018 and 2019 at least two disciplinary proceedings were opened against him, but they did not lead to sanctions. In one case the HQCJ demanded punishment of the judge for inaccurate information in his integrity declaration for 2016, particularly regarding his participation in cases against participants of the Revolution of Dignity.
On 13 February 2014 the judge fined Oleksandr Yakymenko, whom the police accused of participating in a motorcade displaying Euromaidan symbols during a protest near Viktor Yanukovych’s residence “Mezhyhiria” on 29 December 2013. The Public Integrity Council noted that similar decisions from that period were made under instructions from the Presidential Administration. According to the Anti‑Corruption Center, the judge did not include this episode in his integrity declaration, but in 2019 he passed re‑certification.
Another high‑profile episode in Vitaliy Ukrayinetz’s career concerned the case of Oleksandr Avakov, son of then Interior Minister Arsen Avakov. On 1 November 2017 the judge refused to remand him in custody at the prosecutor’s request in a case of alleged embezzlement of 14 million UAH during the purchase of backpacks for the National Guard. Instead, personal obligation with an electronic bracelet and surrender of his foreign passport was chosen. Two months later those restrictions were not extended.
Vitaliy Ukrayinetz has served as a judge of Kyiv’s Solomianskyi District Court since 2007 and currently chairs it. His candidacy for a position at the Kyiv Court of Appeal must now be assessed by the HQCJ plenary. Separately, the High Council of Justice will consider the disciplinary complaint regarding the loan dispute decision, and the HQCJ must complete its verification of integrity declarations for 2023 and 2024.
Document: PDF proof of the original version of the news item "Суддя Віталій Українець: від справ Майдану до скандалу з боргом". It records the publication content at the moment of the first scan, the preservation date and the source: Fraza.
