The head of the Poltava District Court was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings
The High Council of Justice upheld the decision to dismiss the head of one of Poltava’s district courts following a review of a disciplinary complaint filed by NABU and the SAPO.
The basis for the complaint was pre-trial investigation materials which, according to anti-corruption agencies, indicated that the judge had engaged in extrajudicial communication regarding the adoption of “desired” decisions in several court cases.
Specifically, the complaint cited two incidents:
- possible influence on another judge to issue a decision not to hold the son of a Poltava Court of Appeal judge accountable for driving under the influence;
- the issuance of a decision to grant a preliminary injunction in a land dispute.
On November 17, 2025, the First Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice ruled to impose a disciplinary sanction on the judge in the form of a motion for dismissal.
On June 16, 2026, the High Council of Justice upheld this decision, finally approving the judge’s dismissal from office.
At the same time, in accordance with the presumption of innocence, any conclusions regarding possible criminal offenses may be drawn only after a court decision that has entered into legal force.
Source: NABU.
The High Council of Justice has yet to make progress in reviewing the complaint filed by businesswoman Alona Shevtsova regarding Judge Volodymyr Marmash of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv. The complaint concerns gross violations which, according to the complainant, the judge committed while considering a motion by BEB detectives to conduct a special pre-trial investigation regarding Shevtsova.
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 on behalf of Alona 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, during the consideration of a motion by BEB detectives to conduct a special pre-trial investigation regarding Alona 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 V.Y. Marmash failed to comply with the requirements of the law.
We previously reported that a second request was submitted to the High Council of Justice on behalf of Alona Volodymyrivna Shevtsova regarding Judge Volodymyr Yaroslavovych Marmash of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv.
