See more
Publication date: 01.05.2024
During the investigation, NABU detectives seized a judge's phone, although the investigating judge's ruling did not provide for this
Judge Lyudmyla Kropyvna of the Northern Economic Court of Appeal found herself in an unpleasant situation.
Judge of the Northern Commercial Court of Appeal Liudmyla Kropyvna reported to the High Council of Justice that NABU detectives violated her rights during investigative actions.
According to the judge, the other day, detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted investigative actions in her household - an inspection.
During the inspection, one of the NABU detectives made an additional demand - to provide Judge Lyudmyla Kropyvna's personal cell phone and tablet for inspection.
The judge did not argue with the NABU detective and provided the phone and tablet for inspection, which was recorded by the Bureau's employees on video. The NABU representatives also said on video that they did not intend to seize the judge's phone and tablet.
However, after the inspection procedure was over, the NABU detective refused to return the phone and tablet to the judge and said that he was seizing them.
The judge noted that the ruling of the investigating judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court did not contain permission to seize any items from the judge, including a cell phone. However, the NABU detectives, as stated in the judge's report, actually ignored Lyudmyla Kropyvna's protest.
Lyudmyla Kropyvna also said that the decision to seize the phone and tablet was made by the NABU detective after lengthy negotiations with an unknown caller on the phone.
That is, if at first the detective informed the judge on the record that only the judge's cell phone and tablet would be inspected, then later, after talking to someone on the phone, he changed his position and actually ignored the decision of the HACC investigating judge.
Lyudmyla Kropyvna also added that although the ruling of the HACC investigating judge did not give NABU the right to seize property and conduct a search in the judge's household, the inspection conducted by the detectives gradually turned into a search and seizure of the judge's personal property.
"I would like to note that the detective was constantly receiving calls on his cell phone, and it was clear from the conversation that he was being pressured and given orders, including those to seize things belonging to me," said Liudmyla Kropyvna.
According to the judge, the actions of the NABU representatives are nothing more than pressure on the court and interference in the professional activities of Lyudmyla Kropyvna.
"I believe that the actions of the NABU detective were illegal and aimed at obstructing my professional activities," added Liudmyla Kropyvna and asked the High Council of Justice and the Prosecutor General to provide their assessment of the actions of the NABU representatives.
It is worth noting that in 2024, judges' complaints about what they consider to be incorrect actions of law enforcement officials became more frequent. Thus, as reported by the Judicial and Legal Newspaper, groups of judges of the Kirovskyi District Court of Kirovohrad and the Kropyvnytskyi Court of Appeal reported direct pressure from the regional prosecutor's office to the HCJ. And a judge of the Yuzhnoukrainsky City Court of Mykolaiv Oblast recently complained about the public persecution of him by the local police.
Meanwhile, judge Larysa Bohomolova, who is suspected of treason, has been temporarily suspended from administering justice
The judge was temporarily suspended from the administration of justice based on the decision of the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice.
Judge of the Berdiansk City District Court of Zaporizhzhia Oblast Larysa Bohomolova, seconded to the Poltava District Court of Poltava Oblast, has been temporarily suspended from the administration of justice based on the decision of the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice. This was reported by the HCJ.
The decision to bring the judge to disciplinary responsibility and impose a disciplinary sanction in the form of a motion for dismissal was made by the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice on May 1, 2024.
Pursuant to part seven of Article 49 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and Status of Judges" and part two of Article 62 of the Law of Ukraine "On the High Council of Justice", taking into account the decision made by the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice on May 1, 2024, judge Larysa Viktorivna Bohomolova, seconded to the Poltava District Court of Poltava Region, was suspended from the administration of justice.
If a body that considers cases of disciplinary liability of judges decides to impose a disciplinary sanction on a judge in the form of a motion to dismiss the judge from office, such judge is automatically temporarily suspended from the administration of justice until the decision on his or her dismissal is made by the High Council of Justice. Judges are considered to be temporarily suspended from the administration of justice without a separate decision of the High Council of Justice.
The period of suspension of judges from the administration of justice is until the High Council of Justice decides to dismiss them from office or reverse the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber.
The suspension of the judges from the administration of justice is valid until the High Council of Justice decides to dismiss them from office or reverse the decision of the Disciplinary Chamber.
As a reminder, Larysa Bohomolova is suspected of committing a criminal offense under part two of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, namely high treason.
Earlier, the HCJ granted consent to the detention of judge Larysa Bohomolova, who is suspected of treason. The judge was also temporarily suspended from administering justice.
We would like to add that the SBU published audio of conversations where the head of the Poltava District Court, Larysa Bohomolova, cooperated with the Russian Federal Security Service.
Thus, we can see that the adopted amendments to the current law were adopted taking into account the changes in the requirements of the time and the imposed martial law in Ukraine, as well as the fact that a Legal analysis of the situation, a analysis of the situation by a lawyer, analysis of the situation by a lawyer, a legal analysis of the situation and a legal opinion were conducted.
