In fact, this is a targeted attack on the judicial mafia by Zelensky. Judge Pavel Vovk Photo: facebook.com
The head of state has decided to liquidate one of Ukraine's most notorious courts—the Kyiv District Administrative Court, headed by the equally notorious Pavlo Vovk. This initiative will likely be supported by parliamentarians, but it does not address the global problem of corruption in domestic courts: changing the rules of the judicial system can only occur after a major judicial reform, which will, among other things, update the judicial selection and oversight bodies, the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) and the Higher Judicial Council (HCP), writes Apostrophe.
Vova's success
On April 13, Volodymyr Zelenskyy submitted an urgent bill to the Verkhovna Rada proposing the liquidation of the Kyiv District Administrative Court. In its place, the president proposes creating the Kyiv City District Administrative Court. According to the document, the Kyiv District Administrative Court will cease administering justice and, within ten working days, transfer cases to the Kyiv District Administrative Court, which will hear proceedings until the Kyiv City District Administrative Court resumes its work. The Presidential Administration cited Article 125 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which states that the court is created, reorganized, or liquidated by law, a draft of which is submitted to parliament by the president after consultation with the High Council of Justice.
"The adoption of the relevant bill will help increase trust in the judiciary and ensure the functioning of an independent and impartial court that will meet high public expectations and demands for justice," states the explanatory note to the bill, prepared by the Office of the President. Why, then, does the court currently being liquidated fail to meet these demands and expectations?
The OAC was established in November 2004 by President Leonid Kuchma. The Code of Administrative Procedure, introduced just under a year later, assigned this court a special specialization: hearing cases involving central government bodies as defendants or appeals of government decisions. This situation allows this court to exert influence over executive and judicial authorities, something its leadership accuses the NABU of.
The District Administrative Court can hear appeals against decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers, ministries, the National Bank, and central government bodies. It also has jurisdiction over appeals against decisions of the Antimonopoly Committee, cases against bodies conducting disciplinary proceedings against prosecutors, and cases regarding the liquidation or ban (!) of political parties.
The court's most notorious current representative, its head, Pavlo Vovk, took a job there after leaving his position as an assistant to Serhiy Kivalov, a Party of Regions MP, former Chairman of the Central Election Commission, and the "helmsman" of the judicial system in the late 2000s. In 2010, under Viktor Yanukovych's presidency, Vovk became head of the OAC, having previously served for a year as a member of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQC) under a Verkhovna Rada quota. He is said to have succeeded thanks to the patronage of the infamous Andriy Portnov, who, as deputy head of the Presidential Administration, was at the helm of Ukraine's judicial system. Incidentally, Vovk allegedly continued his close collaboration with these "fixers" even after Yanukovych's fall: during Petro Poroshenko's presidency, requests from the highest state leadership were sent to Vovk through Oleksandr Granovsky, a deputy from the Petro Poroshenko Bloc. Thus, in 2016, the film crew of the program "Schemes" recorded Granovsky holding several meetings with interlocutors at the "Ink" restaurant, located in the Kyiv business center "Leonardo", owned by Rinat Akhmetov, among whom was Vovk.
Scandals in the OAS
During Vovk's decade-long "reign" at the OASK, many high-profile scandals occurred. Let's recall some of them.
Repression against the Revolution of Dignity
In 2013, Yevhen Ablov, deputy chairman of the OAC, handled a lawsuit filed by a citizen with unusual speed, alleging that protest barricades in central Kyiv were impeding his movement. This decision became the formal basis for the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Kyiv City State Administration to attempt to unblock Kyiv's center and remove the barricades, while the Berkut riot police attempted to disperse the protesters on the night of December 10-11. As a result, the Supreme Court of Justice found no grounds for Ablov's dismissal.
Manual distribution of cases
In 2019, Skhemy journalists discovered that the District Administrative Court had devised a scheme to circumvent the automatic assignment of high-profile cases to judges, specifically those involving former State Fiscal Service head Roman Nasirov and oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky. As it turned out, on April 17, 2019, several lawsuits could only be heard by one judge of the District Administrative Court—Ihor Pogribnichenko. According to a report on the automated assignment, 38 judges were excluded from hearing cases that day for various reasons.
History according to Portnov and "incorrect" Ukrainian spelling
In January 2021, the OAC overturned the Cabinet of Ministers' resolution that adopted the new Ukrainian spelling in 2019. At the same time, the OAC upheld the claim of the aforementioned Andriy Portnov and ordered the Ministry of Education to revise school textbooks on Ukrainian history published in 2018 and 2019 for an "accurate presentation of the events of the Revolution of Dignity."
Vovk's Films
In July 2019, the NABU conducted a search of the OAC building, and recordings known as the "Volk tapes" were publicly released. In them, a man whose voice resembles that of court chairman Pavlo Vovk discusses influencing the courts, government bodies, and the seizure and retention of power. He also boasts of negotiating a non-disciplinary deal with OAC judges Bohdan Sanin and Yevhen Ablov, who issued the ruling banning the Maidan rallies in 2013 and other decisions against participants in the Revolution of Dignity.
Based on these facts, the NABU and the SBU opened criminal proceedings against Vovk and his colleagues, accusing them of creating and participating in a criminal organization, seizing state power, abuse of influence, interfering in the activities of government officials, and creating artificial obstacles to the work of the High Qualification Qualification Commission and its members. Pavlo Vovk, naturally, denies the authenticity of these recordings. Furthermore, he claims that in this way, "foreign agents, commissioned by other states, are attempting to seize judicial power in Ukraine in order to deprive the country of sovereignty."
A move towards Kolomoisky
In late March, the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine fined Privat's network of gas stations (Ukrnafta, Avias, and others) a record 4,7 billion hryvnias. To prove collusion in the fuel market, the regulator used materials from the National Antimonopoly Bureau of Ukraine (NABU). Ukrnafta, controlled by Ihor Kolomoisky, then appealed to the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine. As a result, the court ruled that references to data collected by the NABU for the AMCU investigation were illegal. In other words, the evidence the regulator relied on when deciding on the fine was nullified, and Kolomoisky gained a powerful weapon to challenge the fine in court. Rumor has it that this decision was the final straw for the OP: after it, Bankova Street finally decided to abolish the court.
Ali-Vovka Cave
The "Volk tapes" weren't the end of the OAC story. On April 6 of this year, NABU, together with the SAP, caught two lawyers red-handed who had promised to secure a favorable ruling on a business entity's claim through Vovk for $840. One of the lawyers turned out to be Vovk's brother, Yuriy Zontov, who also works for the Foreign Intelligence Service. Following a search of Zontov's home, NABU officers found antiques, $3,7 million, 20 euros, 230 British pounds, 100 hryvnias, and 100 Israeli shekels. The OAC called on NABU officers to "comply with current legislation and not resort to yet another PR stunt" and stated that "investigators did not seize any evidence during the searches."
Finita for a comedy?
According to Igor Petrenko, an expert at the International Center for Legal Policy, President Zelenskyy is acting within the law by liquidating the OASK, as the Constitution stipulates that courts are created, liquidated, and reorganized by adopting appropriate legislation.
"Nowhere does it say that the president must justify why he's liquidating a particular court. The OAC and Vovk himself are things that are quite damaging to the judicial system, which is already in poor shape. Of course, the liquidation of the OAC is a targeted measure to address the problem with the courts. It has issued many odious decisions, and there are numerous criminal cases against Vovk, his brother, and so on. In the eyes of the public and our Western partners, this is a hotbed of corruption, and to a certain extent, even an example of the usurpation of judicial power: Vovk didn't choose the methods to achieve his goals," says Petrenko.
In his opinion, Zelensky's decision is forced and will yield quick results.
"The liquidation of the OASK in no way protects Vovk from criminal liability. The investigations will continue, and he will not lose his status as a defendant. But, again, a comprehensive judicial reform is needed that encompasses both the Supreme Court of Justice and the High Qualifications Judgement Court," adds Petrenko.
He is supported by Nikolai Khavronyuk, a member of the board of the Center for Political and Legal Reforms and a well-known lawyer.
"The president has the right to initiate legislative changes regarding the creation or liquidation of courts after consulting with the Supreme Court of Justice. In other words, Zelenskyy has done everything required by law. He should have done what he did much earlier, thus preventing the OAC from causing harm to society," Khavroniuk told Apostrophe.
Evgeniya Kravchuk, a representative of the mono-majority and deputy head of the Servant of the People faction, says the issue of liquidating the court could be considered quite soon.
"I heard from the President's representative at the Constitutional Court that it's realistic to consider the OASK issue at an extraordinary session next plenary week, that is, at the end of April. Of course, there needs to be a decision from the relevant committee. Since the draft was submitted as urgent, the expedited procedure reduces the time for submitting alternative drafts," the MP told Apostrophe.
Kravchuk asserts that the majority of the "servants" will support this project, since "it would be strange not to vote for the liquidation of such a discredited court, and it is impossible to provide an excuse for why colleagues would not vote for this project."
Speaker Dmytro Razumkov, who has once again decided to demonstrate his "special position," appears to be keen to contribute to the liquidation process. Rumor has it that he is demanding that the Presidential Office present the legally required advisory opinion of the Higher Justice Court on the bill to liquidate the Kyiv District Administrative Court. The issue is that the opinion has not yet been submitted to parliament, and the Presidential Office may attempt to pass off another opinion—one issued by the Higher Justice Court six weeks ago—as its counterpart on the bill to merge the Kyiv District Administrative Court with the Kyiv District Administrative Court into a single court. Razumkov allegedly opposes including the bill on the agenda without the "correct" opinion of the Higher Justice Court.
The bill will likely be voted for by a single majority, and some opposition factions will also vote for it, as Zelenskyy is formally fulfilling public demand. However, as experts note, this step alone will not protect Ukraine from the emergence of new odious judges and judicial bodies, as there are still no safeguards in place regarding how the court that will replace the OAC should be formed to fundamentally differentiate it from its scandalous predecessor. Furthermore, the court's liquidation does not automatically mean the dismissal of odious judges. They can be appointed to another court by the High Qualification Commission of Judges, which has not yet been formed. It is the former composition of this body, along with the High Council of Justice, that is considered the cementing force of the judicial system: by making decisions on the selection, appointment, punishment, and dismissal of judges, they completely protect the corrupt system. Consequently, the liquidation of the OAC will not replace full-fledged judicial reform. It must change the rules of the game across the entire judicial system, not just individual judges or structures. And this will happen, but not until there is active public demand, which is currently lacking.
Denis Zakharov
In topic: On "Matchmakers" and Moose: Zelensky Declares War on Judges
The updated composition of the Council of Judges of Ukraine has been announced.
Judge Tatkov's Revenge. Will Yanukovych's Associate Return Triumphantly from Vienna?
Subscribe to our channels in Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, VC — Only new faces from the section CRYPT!