Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court renders decision in a case concerning disciplinary liability of a judge who heard a criminal case related to the Revolution of Dignity events

On May 5, 2026, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court delivered a ruling in which it assessed the legality and validity of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) decision to impose disciplinary liability on a judge who presided over a criminal case accusing a former commander of the Lviv “Berkut” unit of committing criminal offences related to the violent dispersal of participants in the Revolution of Dignity.

The HCJ’s decision was based on the fact that the judge considered the defence’s motion to close the criminal proceedings due to the expiration of the statute of limitations without the participation of all parties to the criminal proceedings, and also allowed violations of the time limits for hearing the criminal case (the trial lasted more than 7 years) due to a systematic negligent attitude toward the organization of the proceedings.

When reviewing the judge’s appeal against the HCJ decision, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court noted that the provisions of criminal procedural legislation clearly indicate that a motion for exemption from criminal liability with the subsequent closure of criminal proceedings must be considered with the participation of the victims and with clarification of their opinion regarding the possibility of releasing the suspect or accused from criminal liability.

Thus, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court found justified the HCJ’s conclusions that the judge’s failure to summon the participants in the criminal proceedings to the court hearing and to notify them of the receipt of the defence counsel’s motion demonstrates a violation by the judge of clear and understandable requirements of procedural law and a negligent attitude toward his duties.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court also agreed with the HCJ’s position that, in the case of systematic actions by the participants in the proceedings that lead to delays, the decisive factor is precisely the active position of the judge. In this case, the judge did not use his powers to respond appropriately to such actions, which ultimately resulted in the expiration of the statute of limitations for criminal liability and the closure of the proceedings.

When adjourning court hearings, the judge was required to ensure the necessary balance between respecting the rights of the parties and considering the case within the time limit established by law or at least within the statute of limitations set by the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

In addition, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court recognized as justified the HCJ’s assertion that, given the dynamics of the case, the judge should have understood the risks of the statute of limitations expiring and changed his approach to organizing the proceedings, in particular regarding the frequency of scheduling court hearings. At the same time, the fact that only 133 hearings were held out of 226 scheduled in the case (i.e., 41% of the court hearings did not take place) indicates deficiencies in the organization of the case review.

Therefore, in this case, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the judge’s appeal and upheld the challenged HCJ decision without changes.

Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated May 5, 2026, in case No. 990SCGC/53/25 – https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/136901093