During the Revolution of Dignity, authorities utilized different tactics to place pressure on protesters, such as through the court system. Ukrainian judges during Yanukovych’s presidency massively banned peaceful protests and unreasonably imposed harsh pre-trial restrictions on detainees. The Maidan Judges Database project of the All-Ukrainian Automaidan Association includes more than 300 judges who were involved in harassing protesters. Currently, most of those same judges still serve in the judiciary and draw salaries from the state budget.
To mark a decade since the Revolution of Dignity, Slidstvo.info journalists conducted research into the present situations and careers of judges who oversaw related court cases from that era. According to their findings, many of these members of the judiciary have to date avoided accountability for their reported actions during that time: legal matters concerning their conduct were closed without charges, some challenged employment decisions or elected to resign from their posts.
RESIGNATION INSTEAD OF DISMISSAL
According to the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”, every judge who resigns is supported by the state for life. The amount of this monthly allowance depends on the judge’s salary and length of service – the longer the service, the more money the judge receives. These payments can reach hundreds of thousands of hryvnias per month.
Ihor Lichevetskyi is one of the many Maidan judges who decided to take advantage of the possibility of lifetime support at the expense of Ukrainians.
Judges from left to right: Oleksandra Matsedonska, Volodymyr Melnychuk, and Ihor Lichevetskyi
During the Revolution of Dignity, in 2014, the panel of judges, which included Lichevetskyi, considered an appeal against the decision of OASK, the District Administrative Court of Kyiv (now liquidated specialized administrative court of Kyiv) to ban peaceful protests on the Maidan. Despite the fact that one of the panel members, Judge Oleksandra Matsedonska, saw a violation and refused to uphold the decision, Lichevetskyi, along with another judge, Volodymyr Melnychuk, effectively legalized the unlawful OASK ruling.
“Lichevetskyi had a great opportunity to cancel the OASK ruling, which became the formal reason for the violent dispersal of protesters on Maidan. But he made his decision, and the OASK ruling was upheld,” says Kateryna Butko, head of the All-Ukrainian Association Automaidan.
Initially, Lichevetskyi and other judges who banned peaceful protests faced dismissal because the Temporary Special Commission (TSC) for the Verification of Judges of General Jurisdiction found violations in the OASK ruling and the appeal. But the dismissal did not ultimately occur, as the judges successfully appealed the TSC’s decision.
After that, Lichevetskyi continued to work as usual and was appointed to the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal, and resigned from that position in July 2023. He now receives lifetime pension benefits from public funds, with monthly disbursements averaging close to 100,000 hryvnias ($2,719).
Lichevetskyi believes that he merits lifetime financial support. Now he is raising children and prefers not to revisit the past.
According to the Maidan Judges Database, 61 of the judges who obstructed peaceful protests have resigned and are now being supported by Ukrainians.
REINSTATEMENT IN OFFICE
Most of the so-called “Maidan judges” have remained in their positions. Despite the negative conclusions of the Public Integrity Council, investigations by journalists and the attention of activists, these judges have successfully passed all the checks and continue to issue decisions, rulings, resolutions, and sentences.
Among these judges is Andriy Zinchenko. On November 26, 2013, he upheld a lawsuit filed by the Kharkiv City Council and banned the city residents from holding a rally “For European Integration” on the streets of Kharkiv.
Judge Andriy Zinchenko / photo: kh.suspilne.media
For this ruling, a complaint was filed against Zinchenko with the High Council of Justice (HCJ). In 2017, it was reviewed and the judge was disciplined and dismissed. But Zinchenko soon appealed this decision of the HCJ.
During the qualification assessment by the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ), Zinchenko lied in a special declaration of integrity as he concealed the fact that he had banned protests during the Euromaidan.
Lying in the declaration is a disciplinary violation for which the HCJ can bring a judge to justice. However, Zinchenko was not punished, as the HCJ decided that the judge had unintentionally lied in his integrity declaration.
Now Zinchenko continues to work as a judge of the Kharkiv District Administrative Court.
Oksana Tsarevych, a judge of the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv, has a similar story. She deprived activists who organized peaceful protests of the right to drive. For example, Automaidan activists were blocking the road leading to the residence of fugitive President Viktor Yanukovych in Mezhyhirya.
Judge Oksana Tsarevych / photo: www.unian.ua
Olha Luhova was one of the participants in this car protest. Police officers drew up a report on an administrative offense against her for failing to stop at the request of law enforcement officers.
This report was considered in court, where Olha Luhova was found guilty of committing an administrative offense. The protester was deprived of the right to drive for six months. This case was considered by Judge Tsarevych.
Most of these administrative reports were forged or drawn up with errors. The report against Olha Luhova was no exception.
The Kyiv Court of Appeal reviewed Oksana Tsarevych’s decision and concluded that there was no evidence in the case file: there was no proof of refusal to stop at the request of the police, so it declared the decision illegal and unfounded.
Tsarevych was one of the judges who had legal protections removed in a public process and was almost immediately dismissed for violating her oath. However, in June 2020, the Shevchenkivskyi Court ruled Judge Tsarevych not guilty as she did not breach responsibilities, stating in documentation that all matters were addressed appropriately by established procedures governing timing, regional authority and lawful process initiation, etc.
In 2021, the order to dismiss Tsarevych was canceled and she returned to the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv.
THE FEW DISMISSALS OF “MAIDAN JUDGES”
There are examples of “Maidan judges” who have been dismissed from office. Such cases are more of an exception, including, for example, the case of Viktor Dubas, a judge of the Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv.
Ex-judge Viktor Dubas / photo: www.maidan-judges.info
On January 25, 2014, Dubas ruled to take protester Andriy Shmyndiuk into custody. This individual was suspected of public disorder under the criminal investigation, though reports indicate it was he who was assaulted by law enforcement who beat him and damaged his vehicle.
Because of this judge’s decision, the protester was detained from late January until mid-February, when the Appeals Court commuted his pre-trial restriction to home confinement.
This judge also deprived the activists of the right to drive.
In 2017, during the qualification assessment, the HQCJ decided that Dubas was not fit to sit in court. He was finally dismissed in 2019.
There are also judges who resigned from their positions. For example, Maria Shklianka, a former judge of the Darnytskyi District Court in Kyiv, who deprived Maidan activists of the right to drive.
Ex-judge Maria Shklianka
Ultimately, records indicate the judge left the judicial role in 2018, departing voluntarily.
According to the Maidan Judges Database project, as of 2022, out of over 300 judges involved in protest-related cases, around 20 resigned without external pressure while 53 faced employment consequences for reported misconduct, though not necessarily linked directly to those cases. However, 170 judges named in the database were still listed as serving in active judicial roles and presiding over cases.
