The High Council of Justice excused a judge of the Pechersk District Court for a gross violation of procedural law
The Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice denied the motion to hold Judge Kristina Konstantinova of the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv accountable under disciplinary proceedings and closed the case against her.
The basis for the review was a complaint alleging that the judge had exceeded the scope of the motion filed by a prosecutor from the Office of the Prosecutor General to extend the term of the obligations imposed on the individual in connection with the application of a preventive measure in the form of a personal undertaking in criminal proceedings.
Specifically, the judge is accused of going beyond the scope of the motion filed and issuing a ruling on March 18, 2025, extending the term of the obligations until May 18, 2025, even though the actual term had already expired on February 3, 2025. Furthermore, the ruling allegedly failed to address the defense’s arguments.
A case against the judge was opened before the High Council of Justice in November 2025 on the grounds of a material violation of procedural law and failure to state the reasons for the decision; however, after hearing the rapporteur and the judge’s representative, the Disciplinary Chamber found no grounds for imposing sanctions.
Source: “Judicial and Legal Gazette.”
Previously, a lawsuit was filed against the High Council of Justice for inaction in the case of Judge Volodymyr Marmash. The High Council of Justice may delay the consideration of a complaint against a judge to allow him to evade responsibility.
The judge in question committed gross violations bordering on disciplinary and criminal liability while considering a motion by BEB detectives to conduct a special pretrial investigation regarding A.V. Shevtsova, which was filed outside the time limits for the pre-trial investigation and beyond the judge’s lawful authority as provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
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 motion in question. The only lawful option in such a situation was to return the motion, but the judge failed to comply with the requirements of the law.
However, a series of inquiries from attorneys failed to break the deadlock regarding the unlawful inaction of the disciplinary inspector of the High Council of Justice, and the responses continue to state that the inspector did not designate the preliminary review of the complaint (the maximum possible deadline for which had already passed in December 2025) as a priority. 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 disciplinary complaint against Volodymyr Yaroslavovych Marmash, a judge 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 “convenient” judge who willingly carries out tasks assigned by unscrupulous law enforcement officials.
