The High Cocute a drunk driver who was driving a car at a speed of 152-172 kilometers per hour and ran over a woman touncil of Justice has disciplined a judge from Ternopil with a reprimand and deprived him of additional payments to his salary. In 2021, this jurist failed to prose death. The judge does not believe he acted improperly. A month after the High Council’s decision, he retired with honor and will now live on state funds for life, Slidstvo.Info reports.
On January 10, 2024, the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) considered a disciplinary complaint against Judge Vasyl Parfeniuk, who works in the Chortkiv District Court of Ternopil Oblast. In 2021, Roman Maselko (a human rights activist at the time) and the Ternopil Oblast Prosecutor’s Office complained about the judge.
Judge Vasyl Parfeniuk gives explanations at the HCJ meeting / screenshot from the meeting broadcast
According to the complainants, Judge Parfeniuk unreasonably closed the case investigating a fatal car accident in Ternopil Oblast. According to the investigation, at 2:30 a. m., Ihor Bosiak was driving drunk an Audi A4 at 152-172 kilometers per hour and hit a 50-year-old woman, who died on the spot.
“She had no chance of survival. Her body was torn apart by the impact. Part of it remained on the road, the other part was on a tree. Some of her internal organs ended up in the car that hit her,” reported journalists who arrived at the scene.
The drunk driver’s car after the accident / photo: te.20minut.ua
During the examination of Bosiak’s condition, it was established that he was drunk. The man had 1.74 ppm of ethyl alcohol in his blood, while the permissible level is 0.2 ppm. As explained by Bosiak himself, he did not drink, and the alcohol in his blood was detected because of the energy drinks he had consumed prior to that.
We will tell you where your taxes are spent. Have the courage to know! Join the Slidstvo Club!
Initially, a criminal case was registered for violation of road safety rules, but it was closed during the proceedings. Despite this, Bosiak could have been brought to administrative responsibility within three months, which Parfeniuk could have done. Instead, the judge closed the case due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
As Parfeniuk explained at the HCJ meeting, prosecutors did not attach a resolution to close the criminal proceedings, so he counted the statute of limitations not from the closure of the criminal case, but from the commission of the crime. Since the court cannot collect evidence on its own initiative to prove a person’s guilt, the judge made his decision based on the evidence he had.
“I don’t think I broke the law. It was just a situation in which it was very difficult to make a truly legal, fair, and correct decision,” says Parfeniuk.
The members of the HCJ Disciplinary Chamber disagree: Parfeniuk failed to take into account the necessary additional materials, failed to assess the evidence available in the case of closing the criminal proceedings, and failed to find out the circumstances that are essential for the correct resolution of the case.
The HCJ considered such actions to be negligence due to an improper attitude to the performance of his official duties. Because of this, Parfeniuk was reprimanded and deprived of salary supplements for a month. Is this a proportionate punishment for the judge’s actions?
“The penalty is disproportionately small, although it is typical for this type of misconduct. In our practice, the HCJ applies either a warning or a reprimand in such cases. Instead, we would like to see drunken driving condoned not as a ‘symbolic punishment’ but proportionate to the offense and the seriousness of the consequences,” says Marta Bereza, a lawyer at DEJURE Foundation.
The judge had to undergo a qualification assessment to prove his competence and integrity to continue working in court, but Parfeniuk avoided it. A month after receiving the reprimand, Parfeniuk resigned. This means that Parfeniuk will be supported by the state for life. The amount of this monthly maintenance depends on the judge’s salary and seniority – the higher the seniority, the more money the judge receives. These payments can reach hundreds of thousands of hryvnias per month.
Initially, a criminal case was registered for violation of road safety rules, but it was closed during the proceedings. Despite this, Bosiak could have been brought to administrative responsibility within three months, which Parfeniuk could have done. Instead, the judge closed the case due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
As Parfeniuk explained at the HCJ meeting, prosecutors did not attach a resolution to close the criminal proceedings, so he counted the statute of limitations not from the closure of the criminal case, but from the commission of the crime. Since the court cannot collect evidence on its own initiative to prove a person’s guilt, the judge made his decision based on the evidence he had.
“I don’t think I broke the law. It was just a situation in which it was very difficult to make a truly legal, fair, and correct decision,” says Parfeniuk.
The members of the HCJ Disciplinary Chamber disagree: Parfeniuk failed to take into account the necessary additional materials, failed to assess the evidence available in the case of closing the criminal proceedings, and failed to find out the circumstances that are essential for the correct resolution of the case.
The HCJ considered such actions to be negligence due to an improper attitude to the performance of his official duties. Because of this, Parfeniuk was reprimanded and deprived of salary supplements for a month. Is this a proportionate punishment for the judge’s actions?
“The penalty is disproportionately small, although it is typical for this type of misconduct. In our practice, the HCJ applies either a warning or a reprimand in such cases. Instead, we would like to see drunken driving condoned not as a ‘symbolic punishment’ but proportionate to the offense and the seriousness of the consequences,” says Marta Bereza, a lawyer at DEJURE Foundation.
The judge had to undergo a qualification assessment to prove his competence and integrity to continue working in court, but Parfeniuk avoided it. A month after receiving the reprimand, Parfeniuk resigned. This means that Parfeniuk will be supported by the state for life. The amount of this monthly maintenance depends on the judge’s salary and seniority – the higher the seniority, the more money the judge receives. These payments can reach hundreds of thousands of hryvnias per month.
