A lawsuit has been filed against the High Council of Justice over its inaction in the case of Judge Volodymyr Marmash
The High Council of Justice has yet to make any progress in reviewing the complaint filed by businesswoman Alona Shevtsova against Volodymyr Marmash, a judge 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.
Due to the delay in reviewing the complaint, Shevtsova’s representatives filed a lawsuit against the High Council of Justice, accusing the body of inaction.
What is stated in the complaint to the High Council of Justice in the case of Volodymyr Marmash
The complaint states that the complaint against Judge Marmash’s actions was received by the High Council of Justice as early as mid-2025.
On October 21, 2025, the automated system assigned a disciplinary inspector-rapporteur—Oleksiy Kabants—to conduct a preliminary review.
However, within 30 days, as required by law, the inspector failed to take the necessary actions, limiting himself only to extending the review period without proper justification. Even after that, the preliminary review was never conducted.
It was precisely this prolonged exceeding of the statutory deadlines for the preliminary review that served as the basis for the lawsuit against the High Council of Justice.
Shevtsova’s representatives believe that such a delay may indicate intentional procrastination aimed at allowing the statute of limitations to expire before Judge Marmash can be held accountable.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs request that the High Council of Justice be found in breach of duty for exceeding the statutory deadlines for the preliminary review of the disciplinary complaint.
They also demand that the High Council of Justice be required to conduct a preliminary review of Shevtsova’s complaint regarding possible violations by Judge Marmash.
Following the filing of the lawsuit, the High Council of Justice must justify its position regarding the priority of reviewing complaints in the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court, which acts as the court of first instance in this category of cases.
Background
We previously reported that a second request was sent to the High Council of Justice on behalf of Alona Volodymyrivna Shevtsova regarding Judge Volodymyr Yaroslavovych Marmash 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 the pre-trial investigation and beyond the judge’s lawful authority as provided by the Criminal Procedure Code.
However, a series of attorney inquiries failed to break the deadlock regarding the unlawful inaction of the disciplinary inspector of the High Council of Justice, and the responses further state that the inspector did not designate the preliminary review of the complaint (the maximum possible deadline for which expired back in December 2025) as a priority.
Such systematic and ongoing inaction is expressly provided for by relevant procedural law as grounds for appeal; therefore, attorneys for A.V. Shevtsova filed a corresponding administrative lawsuit against the inaction of the High Council of Justice regarding the delay in the proper and timely consideration of the disciplinary complaint filed back in October 2025 against Judge V.Y. Marmash.
Now the High Council of Justice will be compelled to justify the prioritization of its own agenda not in response to a request from the attorneys, but in its own response to the complaint filed with the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court, which acts as the court of first instance in such cases.
However, if the disciplinary inspector resumes the proper exercise of the powers granted to him by law, the grounds for the claim may disappear, and the inevitability of legal liability for the violations committed by the judge could serve as a vivid example of the need for strict compliance with the law even by a person to whom the state has granted the authority to administer justice.
