HCJ Supports Dismissal of Vovk as Kyiv Administrative Court Judge

The High Council of Justice supported the dismissal of Pavlo Vovk from the position of judge of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv, as he was subject to disciplinary action in the form of a motion for dismissal.

After that, the HCJ should once again support his release.

This decision was supported by nine members of the Supreme Judicial Council on March 4, while two were against it, media reports say.

As is known, on November 13, the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided to impose a penalty on Judge Vovk in the form of a motion for dismissal, as he committed a disciplinary violation.

The High Council of Justice decided: to leave unchanged the decision of the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice of November 13, 2024 on bringing to disciplinary responsibility the judge of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv, Pavlo Vyacheslavovych Vovk

Earlier, the HighAdministrative Court of Ukraine (HACC) applied a compulsory pretext to the head of the OASK Pavlo Vovk, his deputy Yevhen Ablov, as well as judges Ihor Kachur and Ihor Pogribnichenko. As a reminder, the SAPO sent the indictment to the court in the case of the "Vovk tapes".

Pavlo Vovk is a suspect in the EBK database.

The case accuses the head of the OASC Vovk (he created and headed a criminal organization that made decisions for money), his deputies Yevhen Ablov and Volodymyr Keleberda, OASC judges Oleksiy Ogurtsov, Ihor Kachur, Ihor Pogribnichenko, Bohdan Sanin, former head of the State Judicial Administration Zenoviy Kholodnyuk, former members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges Serhiy Ostapets and Mykola Sirosh, as well as lawyer Oleksandr Krotyuk.

According to the prosecution, the criminal organization, which aimed to seize state power by establishing control over the HQCJ, the High Council of Justice and creating artificial obstacles in the work of the HQCJ, included the chairman, two deputy chairmen and judges of the Supreme Judicial Council. In addition, the aforementioned criminal organization made custom decisions in its own interests.

In particular, for this purpose, the accomplices used a scheme to file artificial administrative lawsuits from fake public organizations or individuals to their own court, with their subsequent consideration with a predetermined outcome.

Let us remind you that earlier the Supreme Court of Ukraine did not close Mykytas' case regarding the National Guard.

We also wrote that the case of former Minister Nasalyk was referred to court.