Menu
Social media
Sections
09 July 2026, 09:45
A judge from Kherson won her case against the Qualification Commission in the Supreme Court
Ця стаття також доступна українською0
Photo: Supreme Court Press Office
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ), which had denied a judge of the Kherson City Court the opportunity to serve on the appellate court. The commission must now reconsider her candidacy.
This is stated in the Supreme Court’s ruling.
On January 20, 2026, the Commission evaluated the judge as a candidate for a position in the general court of appeals. Based on the results of the interview and a review of her file, the candidate scored 417.24 points and was deemed not to have demonstrated the ability to administer justice in the appellate court.
Two issues raised the most questions: the assessment of the judge’s personal and social qualities, as well as the circumstances of her residence in the temporarily occupied territory of Crimea for 249 days in 2014–2015.
The judge appealed the decision, stating that the Commission had selectively evaluated her explanations. In particular, it failed to take into account that on the night before the interview, she was taking shelter with her child during a massive shelling of Kyiv.
She also emphasized that the Commission had already assessed the circumstances of her stay in Crimea earlier—in 2024—when it confirmed her suitability for the position of first-instance judge.
The Commission insisted that the judge had not provided specific answers to questions regarding decisiveness, responsibility, and professional development. On the criteria of integrity and professional ethics, she scored 0 out of a possible 300 points.
The reason was that she had omitted from her integrity declaration the fact that she had received an administrative fine for a traffic violation, as well as her prolonged residence in occupied Crimea without, in the Commission’s view, any urgent need.
The judge explained that after the Rovenky City Court building in Luhansk Oblast was seized in 2014, she was forced to leave for territory controlled by Ukraine. However, for six months she did not receive a salary and was not transferred to another court.
According to her, due to a lack of funds to rent housing and the absence of relatives in government-controlled territory, she—while pregnant—traveled to Crimea, where she lived with relatives of her child’s father. The judge entered Crimea through the official “Chongar” checkpoint.
While in Crimea, she traveled several times to Kherson and Kyiv, where she submitted applications for transfer to courts in Kherson.
At the same time, the High Qualification Commission of Judges noted that although the law did not prohibit visiting temporarily occupied territories, the judge, given her status, should have been aware of the risks and possible consequences of staying there.
The court found that the HQCJ had not provided sufficient grounds for its conclusions. In particular, the Commission failed to take into account specific examples of the judge’s professional performance—high case-processing rates, a minimal percentage of overturned decisions, and no violations of procedural deadlines.
The court also noted a contradiction: in 2024, the Commission reviewed the very same facts regarding her stay in Crimea and found the judge to be fit for her position. In 2026, those same circumstances became the basis for a negative conclusion, without any explanation for this change in position.
Furthermore, the contested decision did not explain which specific violation resulted in the judge’s score being reduced to zero out of a possible 300, even though, according to the rules, each violation can cost a maximum of 15 points.
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Qualification Commission of Judges’ decision was unlawful and overturned it. The Commission was ordered to reconsider the issue of the judge’s ability to administer justice in the court of appeals, taking into account the legal assessment provided by the court.
Court costs in the amount of 1,331.20 hryvnias were awarded to the plaintiff and are to be paid from the High Qualification Commission of Judges’ budget allocations.
