Disciplinary Inspector on the Sidelines: Why Has the High Council of Justice Been Covering for Judge Marmash for Six Months?
We previously reported that a second request had been submitted to the High Council of Justice on behalf of Aliona Volodymyrivna Shevtsova regarding Vladimir Yaroslavovich Marmash, a judge of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv. As noted in previous publications, the aforementioned judge committed gross violations bordering on disciplinary and criminal liability while considering a motion by BEB detectives to conduct a special pre-trial investigation regarding Alona V. Shevtsova, which was filed outside the time limits for pre-trial investigation and beyond the judge’s lawful authority as provided by the Criminal Procedure Code.
These circumstances are the subject of a disciplinary complaint under review by the High Council of Justice, filed back in October of last year on behalf of Alona Volodymyrivna Shevtsova
According to the response from Lilia Yakimyak, Deputy Head of the Secretariat of the High Council of Justice, to a corresponding journalistic inquiry, no specific timeline has been provided for the completion of the review of the disciplinary complaint against Judge Volodymyr Yaroslavovych Marmash of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv.
Such a prolonged delay in reviewing the complaint may be the clearest demonstration of collusion and a reluctance to hold accountable a “convenient” judge who willingly carries out tasks assigned by unscrupulous law enforcement officials.
According to the latest response from the High Council of Justice, the disciplinary inspector who “continues to conduct a preliminary review of the filed complaint” (the duration of which, in exceptional cases, may not exceed 45 calendar days, a period that expired on December 5, 2025) has not changed his conclusion regarding the non-priority of such a complaint.
The complaint against Marmash is that he rendered his decision after the expiration of the pre-trial investigation period, which made it impossible to grant the relevant motion. The only lawful option in such a situation was to return the motion; however, Judge Marmash V.Y. failed to comply with the requirements of the law.
Given these circumstances, there is a high probability that another inquiry will be submitted analyzing the processing dynamics of other complaints filed later and automatically assigned to an inspector, who, for unknown reasons, deemed them more urgent than the one concerning this professional judge of the Lychakiv District Court.
Let us recall how Judge Marmash and BEB detectives establish the rules of judicial proceedings at their own discretion.
Previously, the High Council of Justice was considering a disciplinary complaint filed on behalf of Aliona Volodymyrivna Shevtsova against Judge Volodymyr Yaroslavovych Marmash of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv, who committed gross violations bordering on disciplinary and criminal liability, in particular, considering a motion by BEB detectives to conduct a special pre-trial investigation regarding A.V. Shevtsova.
The complaint against Marmash is that he issued his decision after the pre-trial investigation period had already expired, which made it impossible to grant the relevant motion. The only lawful option in such a situation was to return the motion; however, Judge Marmash V.Y. failed to comply with the requirements of the law.
