The Council of Judges announced an additional call for candidates to the High Council of Justice's competitive selection committee
The Council of Judges of Ukraine has announced an additional competition to select candidates for the selection committee that will be responsible for selecting members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ).
This decision was prompted by an insufficient number of candidates: previously, the Council of Judges had submitted only three candidates, whereas the law requires at least two candidates for each vacant position.
The Council of Judges also warned of the risk that the term of the current HQCJ membership could expire before a new one is formed, which could complicate the work of the system for selecting and evaluating judges.
Given the summer season, the deadline for submitting documents has been extended from 45 to 60 days. Applications will be accepted until September 25, 2026.
Source: Sud.ua.
on behalf of Alona Volodymyrivna Shevtsova regarding Judge Volodymyr Yaroslavovych Marmash of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv, who committed gross violations bordering on disciplinary and criminal liability during, in particular, the consideration of a motion by BEB detectives to conduct a special pretrial investigation regarding A.V. 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 a demonstration of collusion and a reluctance to hold accountable a “compliant” judge who willingly carries out tasks assigned by unethical law enforcement officials.
The allegation against Marmash is that he issued his ruling after the deadline for the pretrial investigation had already expired, thereby making 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.
