“As previously reported, the High Council of Justice is considering a disciplinary complaint on behalf of Alyona Volodymyrivna Shevtsova against the judge of the Lychakiv district court of the city of Lviv Marmash Volodymyr Yaroslavovych, who committed gross violations bordering on disciplinary and criminal responsibility during the consideration of the request of BEB detectives to carry out a special pre-trial investigation against A.V. Shevtsova. Consideration of such a request was carried out”, — write on: ua.news
As previously reported, the High Council of Justice is considering a disciplinary complaint on behalf of Alyona Volodymyrivna Shevtsova against the judge of the Lychakiv district court of the city of Lviv Marmash Volodymyr Yaroslavovych, who committed gross violations bordering on disciplinary and criminal responsibility during the consideration of the request of BEB detectives to carry out a special pre-trial investigation against A.V. Shevtsova.
Consideration of such a petition was carried out by judge Marmash V.Ya. much later than the expiration of the terms of the pre-trial investigation, which made it impossible for him to issue a decision on the satisfaction of such a request. The only legal decision could be to return the petition, however, compliance with the letter of the law in this case by Marmash V.Ya. didn’t happen Later, the Holosiivsky District Court of the city of Kyiv and the Kyiv Court of Appeals confirmed the correctness of the conclusion that the investigation period had expired in November 2024, while the review of the request for a special pre-trial investigation took place in January-March 2025, i.e. outside the limits of the pre-trial investigation.
Currently, the Supreme Council of Justice has taken an additional term for the so-called preliminary review of the disciplinary complaints ostensibly due to a significant number of pending complaints, however, the stated formal reason may hide the fact that the arguments of the complaint, supported by the final decision of the court to close the proceedings, which has entered into force and which directly testify to the “exceeding” of Judge Marmash’s powers, have very likely prospects of bringing the latter first to disciplinary responsibility with all subsequent legal consequences.
It will not be superfluous to also draw attention to the fact that at the time of consideration of the petition for a special pre-trial investigation regarding Ms. Shevtsova, courts in different parts of Ukraine (where BEB detectives were looking for their “comfortable field”) twice refused to choose the so-called absentee arrest, since such petitions had nothing to do with compliance with the principle of legality and the rule of law.
Here, a notable and opposite example is the consideration of a petition for a special pre-trial investigation by the High Anti-Corruption Court. In particular, the investigating judge was very critical of the prosecution’s motion in the case where the appellate court had previously canceled the decision on arrest in absentia (a direct analogy with Shevtsova’s case). To the question of the judge, who is governed by the law, the representative of the prosecution answered that without a court decision on arrest in absentia, he would not have submitted a request for a special pre-trial investigation (the broadcast can be viewed at link )
undefined
Why such a striking difference in the administration of justice by Judge Marmash is a rhetorical question.
Read us on Telegram and Sends
