The Verkhovna Rada declined to consider the motion to remove Oleksandr Boyarsky from his position as a judge
The High Council of Justice has decided to dismiss the motion to remove Oleksandr Boyarsky from his position as a judge of the Bilhorod-Dnistrovsky City and District Court in Odesa Oblast.
The key reason for this decision was that the judge’s powers had already been officially terminated.
This occurred automatically following the entry into force of the court’s guilty verdict against him.
Earlier, on February 3, 2025, the First Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice held Oleksandr Boyarskyi disciplinarily liable and imposed a penalty on him in the form of a motion for dismissal.
The basis for this was the judge’s handling of a large number of cases in which claims regarding the determination of children’s place of residence with their parents were granted.
This illegal scheme was widely used to avoid the mobilization of draft-age individuals into the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Representatives of businesswoman Alona Shevtsova filed a lawsuit against the High Council of Justice, accusing the state body of unlawful inaction. The reason for the lawsuit was the prolonged delay in the consideration of a disciplinary complaint against Volodymyr Marmash, a judge of the Lychakiv District Court of Lviv.
The disciplinary complaint was received by the High Council of Justice as early as mid-2025, and in October of that year, the automated system assigned Oleksiy Kabants as the reporting inspector. However, the inspector failed to take the necessary actions within the 30-day period prescribed by law, limiting himself to an unfounded extension of the deadlines.
As noted in previous publications, the judge in question committed gross violations bordering on disciplinary and criminal liability while considering a motion by BEB detectives to conduct a special pre-trial 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 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 continue to state that the inspector has not designated the preliminary review of the complaint (the maximum possible deadline for which had already passed in December 2025) as a priority.
