High Council of Justice overturns suspension of judge from Kherson region

On October 14, 2025, the High Council of Justice decided to cancel the dismissal of Oleksandr Dyudun from the position of judge of the Chaplynskyi District Court of Kherson Region.

This was reported by the High Council of Justice.

According to the results of the HCJ meeting, Mr. Dyudun was assigned to the Liubashiv District Court of Odesa Oblast.

As a reminder, in 2012, the Prosecutor General's Office accused the judge of taking a bribe of UAH 110,000 for a positive resolution of a land issue. At that time, he was imposed a preventive measure of recognizance not to leave and seizure of property. However, after the Russian takeover of Crimea, the case, which was considered in the Dzhankoy court, was effectively lost.

In February 2025, the Desnianskyi District Court of Kyiv closed the proceedings at the request of Dyudun himself due to the inability to restore the case file.

According to his declaration for 2024, the judge received a salary of UAH 884,625 without administering justice. He also declared a VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT worth UAH 97 thousand and two more SKODA OKTAVIA A5 cars, the cost of which is not specified. In addition, the declaration includes payments as an internally displaced person and social benefits from the relevant budget.

The Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice decided to open a disciplinary case against judge of the Prymorskyi District Court of Odesa Khrystyna Yarema.

The complainant provided a list of more than 30 cases of administrative offenses that were in the judge's proceedings and were not considered within the time limits set by the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, which resulted in the closure of the proceedings in these cases.

In support of the disciplinary complaint, the lawyer also noted that the judge allowed delays in the preparation of reasoned court decisions, untimely provided copies of court decisions for their entry into the unified register of court decisions, entered false information about the date of preparation, signing of the court decision and entry into force of the decisions, and untimely entry of information into the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System.

Катерина Глушко