The High Council of Justice dismissed the arguments: UA.NEWS’s disciplinary complaint against Judge Ivanyuk was returned without consideration
The High Council of Justice dismissed a disciplinary complaint filed by the UA.NEWS news agency against Ivanna Ivanyuk, a judge of the Zaliznychny District Court of Lviv.
The Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice adopted the relevant decision, consolidating dozens of complaints against various judges into a single proceeding. As a result, all of them were returned to the complainants without a detailed analysis of the facts presented.
As a reminder, in its complaint, UA.NEWS provided specific data from a journalistic investigation indicating that Judge Ivanna Ivanyuk conducted so-called “phantom” court hearings without the actual participation of the parties; the possible inclusion of false information in court decisions; the systematic concealment of assets by registering them in the names of relatives; and the existence of unreported financial transactions.
Despite this, the High Council of Justice concluded that the complaint “does not contain information indicating signs of a disciplinary offense” or sufficient evidence.
In fact, this reflects a formalistic approach to the review: instead of assessing the circumstances presented, the body limited itself to citing general grounds for dismissing complaints.
Thus, the issue of possible violations by Judge Ivanna Ivanyuk remained without a proper substantive review.
The decision of the High Council of Justice is final and not subject to appeal.
At the same time, UA.NEWS emphasizes: the facts cited in the complaint are of public interest and require public and legal assessment, rather than a formal dismissal as part of a “package” of other appeals.
In its complaint, UA.NEWS emphasized that Judge Ivanyuk’s actions fall under subparagraph “c” of paragraph 1 and paragraph 10 of Part 1 of Article 106 of the Law “On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges.” The combination of manipulation of court proceedings and the massive concealment of assets calls into question the judge’s integrity and her right to hold office.
“A judge must be an example of compliance with the law, not a master of circumventing it by registering property in the names of relatives,” the appeal to the High Council of Justice stated.
Judge Ivanyuk and Judge Marmash
As a reminder, Ivanna Ivanyuk is the wife of Vladimir Marmash, an investigating judge at the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv, who has likely become a key “decision-maker” for law enforcement agencies and a true symbol of judicial dependence.
Judge Marmash, whose family income officially does not match the level of their savings, displays a lavish lifestyle that may indicate the systematic receipt of illicit benefits, which are subsequently legalized through the purchase of property; Indeed, his wife, Ivanna Ivanyuk, a judge of the Zaliznychny District Court of Lviv, serves as his reliable financial accomplice, ensuring the concealment of undeclared income and the use of assets registered in her mother’s name.
In her 2024 declarations, Judge Ivanyuk deliberately failed to report income totaling 16,314.51 UAH received into her card accounts at PRIVATBANK during just the short period from September 24, 2024, to December 31, 2024, from a number of individuals and legal entities, including MEEST INTERNATIONAL SP. Z O.O. and LLC “UNITED TRADING COMPANY ‘EUROPLUS’.” In addition, a parking space (parking spot) with an area of 18.5 square meters in Lviv, which belongs to her mother but is systematically used by the family, was not declared, and utility payments for this parking spot were made directly by her husband, Judge Marmash, from his personal bank card.
However, despite the obvious nature of these schemes and the existence of concrete evidence, the system reveals a problem in the form of total resistance from the highest echelons of law enforcement and judicial bodies, which refuse to open proceedings regarding pressure on businesses and intentional violations of substantive and procedural law, turning a blind eye to manipulations with jurisdiction.
