The right of a judge to resign - the position of the Supreme Court

A judge may exercise the right to resign if, prior to submitting the relevant application, he or she has not committed any actions that lead to a decision to refuse to submit a proposal to the President of Ukraine to appoint a judge to the position, after which, in particular, the procedure for appointing a judge is completed.

This conclusion was reached by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. In the present case, the plaintiff appealed against the decision of the High Council of Justice to reject her application for dismissal as a judge.

In 2009, she was appointed as a judge of the Donetsk District Administrative Court for a five-year term, and in 2013 she was transferred to the District Administrative Court of Kyiv for a five-year term.

In 2016, the High Qualifications Commission of Judges of Ukraine recommended that she be elected as a judge of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv for life, but the High Council of Justice refused to make a corresponding submission to the President of Ukraine, finding that the judge's violations of procedural law in making a decision to restrict the right of citizens to peaceful assembly could negatively affect public confidence in the judiciary in the event of her further appointment. The plaintiff appealed this decision of the HCJ to the Supreme Court.

Subsequently, on April 4, 2019, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court issued a final judgment dismissing the claims.

The plaintiff held the position of a judge for a fixed period of time, and in connection with the decision of the High Council of Justice to refuse to submit a petition to the President of Ukraine to appoint the plaintiff as a judge of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv, the procedure for appointing her as a judge for an indefinite period of time was completed.

At the same time, since November 2017, the plaintiff was on maternity leave, and on February 15, 2021, she resigned from her position as a judge of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv.

Since the plaintiff's five-year term had expired and the issue of her appointment for an indefinite period had been considered, the HCJ concluded that there were no grounds for her resignation.

In her appeal to the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff requested that the relevant decision of the High Council of Justice be declared illegal and annulled, and that the HCJ be ordered to reconsider her resignation.

After reviewing the case, the Administrative Cassation Court of the Supreme Court rejected these claims and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of September 7, 2023 in case No. 9901/400/21 (proceedings No. 11-45заі23) - https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/113690645.

This and other legal positions of the Supreme Court can be found in the Database of Legal Positions of the Supreme Court - lpd.court.gov.ua/login.