A judge from Kryvyi Rih heard cases involving a relative of his wife
The High Council of Justice upheld the disciplinary sanction against Roman Kuznetsov, a judge of the Central City District Court of Kryvyi Rih. He presided over at least two civil cases in which one of the parties was represented by his wife’s brother. The judge received a warning for violating the rules on recusal.
The High Council of Justice upheld the decision to hold Roman Kuznetsov, a judge of the Central City District Court of Kryvyi Rih, disciplinarily liable. The reason was that he heard civil cases involving a lawyer who is his wife’s brother but failed to recuse himself. The basis for the investigation was a decision by the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine dated March 31, 2026. At that time, the HQCJ suspended Kuznetsov’s qualification assessment as a candidate for the position of appellate court judge and referred the matter to the High Council of Justice.
The Commission found that the judge had heard at least two civil cases—No. 216/7618/21 and No. 216/1720/24. In both cases, the interests of one of the parties were represented by an attorney who is the judge’s wife’s brother. Kuznetsov’s marriage took place in August 2022. This information is confirmed by data from the State Register of Civil Status Acts.
Why the judge should have recused himself
Under the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a judge may not hear a case if he is a family member or close relative of a party or its representative. This rule is intended to ensure the impartiality of the court and public confidence in its decisions. Kuznetsov explained that he had informed the parties to the proceedings of his family relationship with the attorney and asked for their opinion regarding a possible recusal. Since no one filed a motion for recusal, the judge believed he could continue hearing the cases.
He also asserted that the family relationship did not influence the outcome of the proceedings. In one case, the court dismissed the claims of the person represented by that attorney. In another, the claims against the defendant—whose interests were represented by the attorney—were not considered at all. However, the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice did not accept these explanations. It emphasized that a judge is obligated to recuse himself if there are grounds for doing so as provided by law. This rule applies regardless of whether the judge considers himself or herself impartial or whether the parties object to his or her participation.
According to the chamber’s conclusion, the absence of objections from the parties to the proceedings does not relieve the judge of the obligation to comply with the law. Hearing a case when grounds for recusal exist may indicate a violation of the rules governing the composition of the court. The materials of the disciplinary proceedings also indicate that in criminal cases involving the same attorney, prosecutors repeatedly filed recusal motions against Kuznetsov due to a family relationship. Other judges granted these motions.
Reasons for the Judge’s Warning
The Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice concluded that the judge’s actions exhibit signs of disciplinary misconduct. Specifically, this concerns a violation of the rules on recusal, as provided for in subparagraph “e” of paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Article 106 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges.” The decision also refers to paragraph 19 of Part 1 of this article, which concerns judges’ declarations of integrity.
In determining the penalty, the chamber took into account circumstances in Kuznetsov’s favor. He had a positive character reference, had not previously been subject to disciplinary action, and, according to the chamber’s conclusion, the violation occurred due to negligence. In light of this, the judges imposed the mildest disciplinary sanction—a warning.
What Decision Did the High Council of Justice Make?
On September 2, 2026, the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice ruled to hold Roman Kuznetsov disciplinarily liable. The matter was subsequently reviewed by the High Council of Justice. After hearing the rapporteur—disciplinary inspector Vyacheslav Pleskach—the High Council of Justice decided to uphold the chamber’s decision. Thus, the warning issued to the judge remains in effect.
Consequently, the High Council of Justice confirmed that Kuznetsov violated the rules on recusal when he heard cases involving a lawyer who is his wife’s brother. The judge’s explanation that there were no objections from the parties to the proceedings did not alter the disciplinary body’s decision.
Three Ukrainian developers will receive grants of up to $100,000 for demining technologies
Ukraine and JICA will establish a network of laboratories for soil analysis following demining
An international organization has suspended demining operations in Ukraine following the deaths of workers
