Tens of thousands of potential candidates for lustration, hundreds of new lawsuits over illegal dismissals from public service, the Justice Ministry's lustration department being left without a job, the creation of a new bureaucratic and, naturally, corrupt monster, and the already traditional "scam" of Europeans—this is an incomplete list of what awaits Ukrainian lustration if amendments to the Law of Ukraine "On the Purification of Government" are adopted.
This is how the Minister of Justice of Ukraine Pavlo Petrenko (Read more about it in the article Pavel Petrenko, the "pocket" boy of the Yatsenyuk "Family"), the head of the Ministry of Justice's lustration department, Tatyana Kozachenko, as well as the authors of the Law "On the Purification of Power," MPs Sobolev, Volokh, Yemets, and others like them, are fulfilling their promise to the Venice Commission. But what about democratic values, you ask? Do those who have seized the trough and are now trying to "make a killing" need them, until Ukrainians realize how they were "cheated" by those who led them to the slaughter from the Maidan stage?
The main thing is the presumption of innocence
So, what were the main complaints of the Venice Commission in December 2014? Representatives of the new democratic team were accused of violating the fundamental principles of democracy (what a paradox, the "champions" of democracy turned out to be banal adherents of dictatorship) – the presumption of innocence, the individual responsibility of those being purged, and the independence of judicial institutions.
Overall, it was proposed to subject virtually all high-ranking officials of the "Yanukovych era," defined as February 25, 2010, to February 22, 2014, to lustration and dismissal. No additional evidence of guilt, such as conviction for corruption, was required.
There were also questions about clearly establishing time limits for both the law's implementation and the time period to which it applies. The commission also proposed stripping the Ministry of Justice of responsibility for conducting lustration and creating a special independent commission for this purpose with the active participation of civil society.
Overall, the Venice Commission's verdict was that the law needed serious revision.
As is typical among amateurs, the law's drafters criticized the commission itself for failing to grasp the unique status of a country that had just overthrown a tyranny. They also reminded the public that the commission's recommendations were not binding.
But no matter how hard they put on a good face, they had to heed the recommendations, because all of this affects the new government's reputation in the West, which, in turn, affects the allocation of loans to Ukraine. In short, whether they like it or not, they had to. But, as expected, they followed their own unique path, stepping on old and new rakes along the way.
Show at the Constitutional Court
Beyond the Venice Commission, the law's implementation immediately encountered opposition from judges. To the surprise of the law's sponsors, dismissed officials began filing lawsuits en masse, which acted not patriotically but in accordance with the law—ruling that their dismissals were illegal.
In fact, lawyers warned about this immediately after the adoption of the Ukrainian Law "On the Purification of Government" and hinted at it in the Venice Commission when discussing the presumption of innocence and individual responsibility. The number of lawsuits was already in the hundreds that winter, after which this information was classified.
The lustration process in the country was essentially paralyzed, and those initiating it blamed Ukrainian judges for the incident, resorting to discrediting them with public statements in the press. In addition to words, criminal prosecution was launched.
However, the judges also found a way to respond, and at the initiative of the Supreme Court and members of parliament from the Opposition Bloc, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine initiated a review of certain provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On the Purification of Government." The first hearing of the Constitutional Court was scheduled for April 16.
The response from lustration advocates was varied: first and foremost, they demanded the recusal of the seven Constitutional Court judges who amended the Constitution of Ukraine "to suit Yanukovych," along with criminal proceedings against them. But, as they say, they screwed up.
Criminal proceedings against seven judges of the Constitutional Court were opened back in March 2014, immediately after the victory of the Maidan, but for some reason no investigative measures were taken.
In short, this is a typical attempt to pressure the Constitutional Court judges and persuade them to abandon a mistrial of a case in which the lustrators will undoubtedly lose. In a desperate attempt to somehow reverse the situation, they recalled the much-buried "case of the Constitutional Court judges," which, it seems, has not seen a single coherent investigation since then.
As usual, activists also took part in the protest, holding a rally outside the Constitutional Court building on April 16.
There was also a minor deception, which is somehow unbecoming for Ukraine's Minister of Justice, Pavlo Petrenko, to stoop to. On air on the Ukrainian TV channel, he stated that on April 14, members of the Justice Ministry's working group submitted a bill with revolutionary amendments to the Verkhovna Rada, eliminating the need to review the old law "On the Purification of Power" for its "constitutionality."
It's enough to look at the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine's website to understand that the minister lied—in fact, the bill was registered in parliament a week after Petrenko's announced date—April 21.
This naive ploy—an attempt to buy time and cancel the review of a controversial appeal—was unsuccessful. The review itself, however, achieved nothing.
How Europe is being cheated
Well, never mind the Minister of Justice. Everyone's already accustomed to the lies of the new generation of officials, as well as to the rallies of "activists" pursuing completely unstated goals. It's far more interesting to study the proposed amendments to the Law of Ukraine "On the Purification of Government."
What is most striking is the expansion of the “base” of those covered by the bill, if it becomes law.
Article 2, part 1, defines positions subject to lustration as judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (clause 4), heads of enterprises related to the management of Ukroboronprom (clause 9), employees of secretariats and apparatuses of state authorities and local governments (clause 10).
But the most severe blow in the back is being received by candidates for people's deputies of Ukraine, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, regional and district councils, the President of Ukraine, heads of villages, towns and cities - they will also be subject to the purge of power, which was not included in the current version of the Law of Ukraine "On the Purification of Power" (clause 12, Article 2 of the bill).
Also, employees of tax inspectorates may be left without work in government agencies for 10 years (Article 3 of the proposed bill).
Let's be honest—expanding the number of officials subject to lustration is a rather strange position, given that hundreds of lawsuits against government agencies for illegal dismissals are pending in Ukrainian courts.
But Ukrainian courts are only half the problem. It would be far worse if domestic officials were to appeal, say, to the European Court of Human Rights. Considering that the Venice Commission found Ukraine's "Law on the Purification of Government" to be inconsistent with fundamental European legal norms, the chances of winning these cases in European courts are very high.
But the surprises don't end there.
The Venice Commission raised the most questions about individual responsibility and the presumption of innocence in relation to those subject to lustration; in other words, guilt must be proven in each specific case.
And here we see a complete disregard for the commission's demands. As before, the main criterion for lustration is holding office for more than one year during the period from February 25, 2010, to February 22, 2014.
True, Part 8 of Article 3 proposes subjecting civil servants to lustration when checking declarations of income, expenses, property, and other matters, if it turns out that a candidate for lustration has assets that exceed his income and cannot prove the legality of the sources of its acquisition.
The situation with Tatyana Kozachenko, head of the Ministry of Justice's lustration department, vividly demonstrates how this audit works in practice. The owner of apartments, cars, and dachas, who came to government service from business, has been unable to pass the audit for six months.
It's no secret that many Ukrainian officials live beyond their means, but being unable to explain how you acquired a million-dollar house on a 2000-hryvnia salary doesn't mean you stole it. It's essential to find out and prove when, how, and what was stolen. The presumption of innocence at its finest...
Will civilized Europe interpret the dismissal of an official for whom law enforcement was unable, or unwilling, to find evidence of a criminal offense and who is unable to explain the source of his wealth as an admission of guilt? We don't know...
Who benefits from lustration?
However, one request from the Venice Commission was taken into account: Ukrainian judges were granted a concession. Specifically, judges will no longer be prosecuted for issuing decisions to prosecute or arrest participants in the Maidan events (Article 3, Part 2, Clause 13 and Part 3) who received amnesty under the Law of Ukraine "On the Elimination of Negative Consequences and the Prevention of Prosecution and Punishment of Persons in Connection with Events that Took Place during Peaceful Assemblies" of January 29, 2014, No. 737-VII, and the Law of Ukraine "On the Prevention of Prosecution and Punishment of Persons in Connection with Events that Took Place during Peaceful Assemblies, and the Recognition of Certain Laws of Ukraine as No Longer in Effect" of February 21, 2014, No. 743-VII. Now, police and prosecutors will be held accountable for these actions.
In addition, the proposed bill removed almost all references to the need for judges to undergo lustration checks, with the exception of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (Article 2, Part 1, Clause 4).
It would seem that judges have been exempted from lustration, but things aren't so simple. In addition to the Law of Ukraine "On the Purification of Government," the April 21 bill proposes amendments to a number of other laws, including the Law of Ukraine "On Restoring Trust in the Judiciary," commonly referred to as judicial reform.
Article 3 proposes to specify the conditions under which judges can be subject to lustration review. Briefly, participating in decision-making in a case related to the Maidan events would be sufficient for this to happen. This will become the primary condition for passing the review as part of the cleansing of power. Incidentally, if the amendments are adopted, such review will last three years, not the current one.
Is it a paradox? So, a judge risks losing his position not for a crime he committed, but for a judicial decision deemed "incorrect" by lustrators? But, firstly, our homegrown lustrators have already been clearly shown in Europe that they are complete legal ignoramuses, so their opinions can be discounted. Secondly, even if the court's decision in that case was unfavorable to the "Maidan activist," the judge was guided by the current legal framework, and accusing him of making an incorrect decision is, at the very least, odd.
In short, the mountain gave birth to a mouse: under the guise of restoring justice, they were in fact engaged in ordinary revenge. What kind of judicial reform is this?
As under current legislation, the Temporary Special Commission for the Inspection of Courts of General Jurisdiction will conduct the review of judges and issue a verdict on their susceptibility to dismissal as part of the lustration process.
Candidates for deputies and mayors were unlucky
In addition to judicial reform, the bill proposes changes to several other legislative acts. For example, it proposes amending the Code of Administrative Offenses by introducing Articles 18847 and 18848, which will introduce administrative penalties for violations related to government cleansing, in the form of fines ranging from 8500 to 17000 hryvnias.
Furthermore, the list of documents submitted upon registration as a candidate for President of Ukraine, as well as for parliament at all levels, will require information on whether the candidate has been verified under the Law of Ukraine "On the Purification of Government" and whether they are listed in the Unified State Register of Persons to whom the provisions of the Law apply. If a candidate provides false information about themselves, the election commission has the right to deny registration.
National Agency for Lustration: powers like a secret service
But the main highlight of the proposed changes will undoubtedly be the creation of a central executive body with a special status that will ensure the formation and implementation of state policy on matters of government cleansing.
In principle, there's nothing unexpected about this. One of the Venice Commission's recommendations was the creation of a special commission on lustration issues, with powers transferred to it from the Ministry of Justice. Justice Minister Petrenko himself announced the creation of a similar body back in March—the National Agency for Lustration Issues. Much more interesting are the powers of this body, as outlined in Articles 53 and 54 of the proposed bill. Listing them would take a long time, but overall, the rights and powers are quite broad.
For example, this body maintains the Register of Persons to whom the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On the Purification of Government" have been applied, has direct free access to any state registers and information databases of state bodies, authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, and local governments, can use state, including government, communication and communications systems, special communication networks and other technical means, adopt mandatory regulatory acts in the area of the purification of government, and, of course, conduct inspections as part of the lustration process.
Overall, the scope of powers and rights is very broad and is perhaps second only to the powers of the country's law enforcement agencies, whose assistance the future National Agency for Lustration may seek, as well as the ability to transmit information to them if necessary to prosecute a suspect. However, the latter has not yet been spelled out.
In short, if the proposed changes are adopted, the position of head of the National Agency for Lustration becomes a golden one, as its holder gains enormous powers. Just think of the kickbacks offered to future candidates for keeping quiet about unsuccessful lustration procedures...
The Prime Minister decides who is worthy of this position. It is on his recommendation, with the consent of the parliamentary commission on corruption, that the head of the future lustration inquisition is appointed.
What a brilliant idea: the person charged with purging the government of its old cadres, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, will be appointed as the person in charge of purging it of its former cadres. What kind of objectivity can we talk about when the person responsible for this appointment is himself subject not only to lustration, but also to criminal prosecution, stemming from corruption accusations leveled within parliament?
Let's not forget the "love" between the President and the Prime Minister, which will flare up with renewed vigor for the position of chief of lustration.
An important question is who will "pay the bill"? That is, how much money will be needed to create yet another bureaucratic monster, whose only job will likely be to push papers. After all, judging by the "successes" of lustration, its employees can't expect anything serious today.
So who will pay for the future lazy lustrators? The law's sponsors propose funding its activities through fines issued by the administration. It's hard to imagine anything more foolish. They're proposing to fund a government body that hasn't even been created yet, using fines that haven't even been issued yet. What's going through the heads of the MPs drafting this bill?
However, it is also proposed to partially finance the future monster by cutting funding from the Ministry of Justice, specifically the Lustration Department. And this already smells of intrigue—there's no talk of disbanding the Lustration Department as unnecessary; it will continue to operate. Such is the duplication of functions.
Hey, Arseniy Petrovich, weren't you the one who promised to cut 20% of officials in 2014, but you stubbornly continue to create new ones?
As for the Department of Lustration of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine, under the new arrangement it will be left behind.
The impression left by the proposed changes is one of lustration: the lustrators, as they say, have decided to have it both ways: to seemingly comply with the demands of the Venice Commission and create yet another feeding trough.
But here's the problem: Europe's main demand—individual responsibility—isn't even remotely respected in the latest bill, so the would-be lustrators won't get a positive assessment from Europe.
In connection with the above, the Prosecutor's Truth has the following questions:
— Since there are plans to expand the database of individuals subject to lustration, does it make sense to check all Ukrainian officials at once?
How are Petrenko, Volokh, Sobolev, and the other developers of the "changes" going to "hush" Europeans that their proposed changes will make the essentially "dictatorial" law democratic, and where, in fact, is the fulfillment of the Venice Commission's demands, at least in terms of individual responsibility?
— How will the law's authors (Yemets, Parasyuk, Volokh, Dobrodomov, Chornovol, Alekseyev, and Lyashko) elbow each other for the seat of the country's chief lustrator? The election of the head of the Anti-Corruption Bureau will seem like a petty prank...
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!