The PIC issued an opinion about him indicating low integrity.

According to Ukrainska Pravda, Stanislav Kravchenko was one of the judges who released from custody the person who assassinated journalist Georgiy Gongadze, a critic of then-President Kuchma. The killer, Oleksii Pukach, was the head of external surveillance at Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior. The court replaced Pukach’s detention with a pledge of travel restrictions, which allowed him to escape and remain in hiding until 2009, when he was caught and sentenced to life imprisonment.

In 2011, Kravchenko was promoted and became a judge of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases (HSCU), which had been “created” by Andrii Portnov, a fugitive politician and deputy head of Yanukovych’s administration. Evidently, the position in the newly created court demanded that the judges be fully loyal to Yanukovych and his party. In spite of this, Kravchenko constantly denied knowing Portnov.

Kravchenko was a member of the judicial panel that issued a decision which violated human rights, as recognized by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In his 2015 declaration of integrity, Kravchenko indicated that he had not issued, individually or as part of a judicial panel, any decisions referred to in Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine “On Restoration of Trust in the Judicial Power in Ukraine.” However, when checked, it turned out that he was part of the panel at the Kyiv Court of Appeal that tried the case that was later tried by the ECtHR as “A.V. v. Ukraine.” The ECtHR noted that “…a lawyer was not available to the applicant […] when he made his first self-incriminating statements… On the facts, the Court does not discern any compelling reason for restricting the applicant’s right to a lawyer during that time. Furthermore, the Court considers that that restriction had prejudiced the applicant’s defense rights.”

Therefore, the judge not only participated in making a decision that was reviewed by the ECtHR, but also failed to mention this fact in his declaration of integrity, which means providing knowingly false data.

According to the BBC, during the election of the new Supreme Court President, Kravchenko promised judges free apartments in exchange for votes in his favor. “He told judges at a meeting something like this — apartments are part of judicial guarantees, so it makes sense to fight for them, and I will do that. In essence, he promised free apartments. Which is a trick prohibited in court.” According to journalists, previous SC Presidents had the opposite position, recommending that judges buy housing independently, considering their salaries of UAH 300,000–400,000 per month.

Stanislav Kravchenko himself said that he “objected to all insinuations.” In an interview with Ukrinform, Kravchenko noted, “This issue was raised at a meeting in the Cassation Administrative Court. One of the judges asked about provision of apartments. I replied that the law provided for official housing for judges, legislative requirements had to be met, and we cannot ignore them. But we need to take into account the reality of life: martial law, financial and economic opportunities. We cannot give apartments to judges; I cannot promise something that does not exist in nature.”

After journalists discovered the Russian citizenship of former SC justice Bohdan Lvov, the latter tried to get reinstated through the District Administrative Court of Kyiv and even got a first-instance decision in his favor. Interestingly, a day before the case was tried, the new SC President Stanislav Kravchenko said in an interview that Bohdan Lvov had been dismissed from the SC staff because of “a subjective decision of then-President of the Supreme Court Vsevolod Kniaziev.”

‍It appears that Kravchenko sided with his former colleague from the economic jurisdiction and Russian citizen Bohdan Lvov, alleging that the Supreme Court was not to blame and that he would have possibly made a different decision. However, such statements not only worsened the legal stance of the Supreme Court as a defendant in the case before its trial; they are also a potential violation of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct and the Judicial Ethics Code.

Kravchenko spoke against cancelling the so-called “Lozovyi amendments,” changes to the Criminal Procedure Code that established strict deadlines for pre-trial investigation. These amendments may result in complex criminal cases being closed before the investigation is complete, allowing criminals to escape punishment and weakening the justice system. The Anti-Corruption Action Center expressed concerns regarding the position of the Supreme Court and its President, Stanislav Kravchenko. Furthermore, he was on the judicial panel which ruled in October 2022 that “Lozovyi’s amendments” had to apply to cases uniting several proceedings where some started before the amendments were passed, and some after. As a side note, the European Commission urged Ukraine to repeal “Lozovyi’s amendments” and introduce reasonable deadlines for pre-trial investigation instead.

The PIC issued an opinion about her indicating low integrity.

The Public Integrity Council had doubts about Olha Stupak’s wealth during the competition for the Supreme Court in 2017 (purchase of a brand-new BMW for UAH 1.4 million and a 380-square-meter house near Kyiv registered in the name of the judge’s mother-in-law). Despite this, the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) and the High Council of Justice (HCJ) disregarded this information, and Stupak became a SC justice.

Later, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, during its investigation into the case of Stupak’s illicit enrichment, discovered facts that confirmed the PIC’s findings. It turned out that the judge had cynically lied during the interview, and had also failed to declare about USD 15,000 in her husband’s accounts.

Stupak claimed that she had purchased the BMW X5 by selling her previous car, but the sale took place after the new vehicle had been purchased. Her mother-in-law did pay for the 380-sq. m. house. The judge explained that the mother-in-law earned money for the house by selling berries at the market, but bank statements show that on the day of payment she received the entire amount from Judge Stupak’s husband’s account. Undeclared residence in the house is also confirmed by mobile phone traffic. In addition, the judge repeatedly made a false claim during official procedures that she had not written a statement to exclude the apartment provided to her from the list of official housing.

On this basis, Roman Maselko (formerly a lawyer, now a member of the High Council of Justice) made a complaint to the former composition of the High Council of Justice. However, the HCJ decided to ignore these facts at the time.

Maselko turned to the Supreme Court to complain about the HCJ’s decision; however, in November 2023, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court (except seven judges) sided with Stupak, who was therefore able to avoid liability. Subsequently, in December 2023, Stupak was appointed a judge at the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.

In September 2023, the rebooted High Qualification Commission of Judges recognized that CEC SC Olha Stupak had indeed lied about these circumstances in her declaration of integrity.

The First Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ (consisting of Yuliia Bokova, Tetiana Bondarenko, Oksana Kvasha, Alla Kotelevets, and Mykola Moroz) legalized the lie in Stupak’s declaration on June 3, 2024. They acknowledged that the judge apparently had no intention of concealing information, including that about the use of the property (house). By law, liability for inaccurate data in a declaration of integrity arises only if it is established that this was done intentionally.

In the opinion of the 1st Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice, the fact that Stupak eliminated the violation in subsequent declarations (included the fact of using the house) confirms the absence of intent. However, the High Council of Justice failed to notice that Stupak had been using the house since August 2015 (according to the NABU’s criminal proceeding), or at least since November 2016, which the judge herself had recognized in her interview with the HQCJ during the selection for the Supreme Court, after the opinion issued by the Public Integrity Council. However, in all subsequent property declarations, Stupak indicated that she had been using the house only since December 2017. According to Alla Kotelevets, the rapporteur in the case, Stupak had mistakenly failed to declare her use of the house. However, the above circumstances indicate the judge’s intentional actions.

In addition, the HCJ started to shift responsibility to the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP), alleging that they were the only ones empowered to carry out full verification of the judge’s electronic declaration, while the Agency had not recognized a violation in the use of the house. However, the High Council of Justice is a completely autonomous body that can independently assess the presence or absence of grounds for opening a disciplinary case and holding a judge accountable; it also has all the necessary tools at its disposal.

In addition, judge Stupak took part in issuing the decision of the GC SC regarding judge Usatyi, which jeopardized the qualification assessment of 180 low-integrity judges.

Yelenina is one of the Grand Chamber judges whose premises were searched by anti-corruption agencies, where they found marked bills during the scandal with Vsevolod Kniaziev, according to Automaidan. From the ruling of the HACC Appeal Chamber, we know that on May 23, 2023, the investigative judge seized the USD 50,000 that was found in the judge’s apartment. The numbers of these bills matched those that the NABU had previously prepared to document the crime. After the searches, the judge allegedly went on holiday, but in June 2023, she went back to work. In March 2024, based on these facts, the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the HCJ launched a case against the judge based on the DEJURE Foundation’s complaint.

In addition, among the judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, she made the decision in the case of judge Usatyi, which jeopardized the qualification assessment of 180 potentially low-integrity judges.

The Public Integrity Council provided information about Yelenina which may indicate her low integrity and requires the judge’s clarifications. During the consideration of a criminal case, she issued a decision wherein she ignored the procedural violations and evidence in favor of acquittal from the court of the appeal instance. This happened during her work as part of the judicial panel in the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Criminal and Civil Cases, “created” by Yanukovych’s associate Andrii Portnov. The defendant was later pardoned by the President of Ukraine.

Hryhodieva, a person likely to be have been involved in Vsevolod Kniaziev’s corruption Scandal, tried to escape and get honorable retirement, but the High Council of Justice stopped the consideration of her application to resign.

The PIC provided information about her which may indicate her low integrity and requires the judge’s clarifications.

Alongside judge Yelenina, Hryhorieva tried a high-profile case connected with the killing of entrepreneur Vasyl Kryvozub. One of the defendants in the case was Serhii Demishkan, the son of a then-influential MP from the Party of Regions and former manager of Ukravtodor Volodymyr Demishkan/ Despite convincing evidence of Serhii Demishkan’s guilt, the judges sent the case for a new trial due to a number of procedural violations. In particular, case files indicated that an interrogation was held without the participation of a defense attorney.

Less than a month after this decision was made, the Parliament selected Hryhorieva to become a judge of the High Specialized Court for Civil and Criminal Cases (HSCU), as indicated by the PIC. Interestingly, at the time, the majority in the Parliament was represented by the Party of Regions MPs, and the court itself was “created” by Andrii Portnov, Deputy Head of Yanukovych’s Administration and a single “supervisor” of the judicial reform. According to media reports, the court was fully staffed with “loyal” people.

Just six months after Hryhorieva started working at the new court, her daughter received the position of chief consultant of the scientific and expert department of the HSCU, i.e., at the same institution. Before that, she had only worked as a trainee assistant to the transport prosecutor.

Interestingly, Hryhorieva was also one of the judges in the case concerning the assassination of Georgiy Gongadze. Back then, she did not allow journalists to enter the room, citing “little space.”

The PIC issued an opinion about him indicating low integrity.

Pohribnyi allowed illegal privatization of property in next to the Lanzheron beach in Odesa before he was even appointed to the Supreme Court. Under a contract with the city council, the contractor had to fix coastal protection structures, but instead, he built illegal structures there. The judge, in turn, illegally recognized the contractor’s rights to these structures.

He allowed the construction to take place within a very short period, in one hearing (or 8 days after the case was received by the court). Serhii Porhibnyi issued a resolution about the transfer of land to the Kyiv Zoo. He allowed part of the zoo to be transferred to a company to build a dolphin entertainment center, despite the fact that any commercial activity is prohibited by law in this area.

By the way, the legal entities involved in both cases have common or related founders. Some of them, at the time of the judge’s decisions, had connections with the city authorities of Kyiv and Odessa.

Pohribnyi prohibited filming at an open court hearing (even though the parties didn’t mind), thus violating the principle of publicity and openness.

Pogribny probably has connections with the infamous politician of the Yanukovych era, Serhii Kivalov, as evidenced by the judge’s scientific works co-authored with him.

As a judge of the GC SC, he took part in the decision regarding the case of judge Usatyi, which jeopardized the qualification assessment of 180 low-integrity judges.

The PIC issued an opinion about him indicating low integrity.

He made decisions that violated human rights, as proven by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Yaremenko v. Ukraine 2.

In 2001, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal ruled against Yaremenko. In 2008, the latter appealed this to the ECHR. Ukraine lost the case “Yaremenko v. Ukraine,” and the European Court of Human Rights recognized that key evidence in the case was obtained in violation of a number of fundamental rights.

In July 2009, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, where Kryvenda was employed, re-examined the criminal case, after which it excluded references to the aforementioned evidence from the motivational part of the verdict, but left the verdict itself unchanged.

In 2015, in the case “Yaremenko v. Ukraine (II),” the ECtHR noted, “…the new decision rendered in the applicant’s case was again based to a decisive extent on the same pieces of evidence which had been obtained in violation of the applicant’s procedural rights and there had been serious allegations, never properly dispelled by the authorities, that all self-incriminatory statements had been extracted under duress and had constituted ‘the fruit of the poisonous tree’…  the Supreme Court perpetuated the violations of the applicant’s right to a fair trial…”

In his declarations of integrity for 2015 and 2016, Kryvenda noted that he had not made any decisions with a violation of human rights, but ECtHR had stated the opposite. In view of this, the judge indicated knowingly false information in declarations, which undermines public trust in judges and the judicial system overall.

In 2016, Bihus.info journalists reported that the judge owned a Lexus RX 350, which he had purchased new in 2014. Oleh Kryvenda sold the previous 2010 Lexus and his old Volkswagen for over UAH 280,000, and purchased the new Lexus RX 350 for over UAH 872,000 (USD 73,000 at the exchange rate at the time).

The judge could not explain where he got the additional money to buy the new car. “UAH 287,000 was the amount that I got from selling the cars, but in addition to that, I had my salary,” said Kryvenda. Kryvenda had a salary of about UAH 300,000 in 2014, so his annual income plus the money from selling the cars would only be sufficient for two thirds of a new Lexus RX 350. The origin of another UAH 254,000 for the purchase of the car is unknown. Interestingly, during his interview, the judge claimed that he had sold the previous Lexus to a colleague for UAH 145,000. This sale price was three times lower than the market price, and, notably, just on the verge of the UAH 150,000 limit for cash settlement according to the NBU resolution. The judge explained the low value of the car by the fact that he was driving to his mother’s house on bad roads.

Kryvenda was also the judge-rapporteur in the case brought by judge Usatyi. The decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court jeopardizes the qualification assessment for 180 low-integrity judges. The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court not only deviated from its own long-standing case law and the practice of the HQCJ and the HCJ, but effectively failed to explain the reasons for this change.