The HCJ covers obvious violations of influential dishonest judges
The HCJ closes its eyes to obvious law violations by influential judges or children of influential parents.
Former chairman of the Council of Judges of Ukraine and the judge of the Supreme Court Valentyna Symonenko made a lot of efforts to keep positions for tarnished judges after the Revolution of Dignity. Under her leadership, the Council of Judges refused to dismiss the head of the State Judicial Administration Zenoviy Kholodniuk on the basis of the lustration. Although, the law, in fact, required it. During the competition to the Supreme Court, many were struck by primitive and illiterate text of her essay of motivation.

The Public Council of Integrity found Valentyna Symonenko dishonest. One reason was a failure to declare her husband's corporate rights. The biggest scandal arose when it turned out that after the occupation of Crimea the judge Symonenko received Russian tax code from the occupying power. She explained publicly that tax officers of the occupier had automatically assigned her this number using old data. However, it turned out that it was not true. Because this number was issued to the passport that the judge had received in 2015. That means that without her application its issuance was impossible.

The number of appeals was filed in 2018 to the HCJ for violations of declaring rules, obvious public lies and recognition of occupying authorities. However, the HCJ refused to open the proceeding regarding lies in the declaration. The appeal regarding receiving the tax code of the Russian Federation had been stalled for almost a year without any reaction.

The judge Olga Stupak won the competition to the Supreme Court thanks to the lie. In particular, she received the right to privatize state-owned apartment thanks to forged document. She "forgot" to discloe in the declaration the quite big house not far from Kyiv, where she lived, although it was registered to the mother-in-law. The NABU started the investigation regarding these facts. Detectives found that the judge wrongfully did not disclose in the declaration the mother-in-law's house, which was actually purchased at her husband's expense. Also, the judge forgot to disclose about USD 20,000 on husband's bank accounts in the declaration.

Appeals against Stupak have been gathering dust in the HCJ for more than a year.

Children of influential parents receive protection from the HCJ as well. In particular, the judge of Economic Court of Kyiv Yuriy Tsiukalo is the son of the vice-rector of the National School of Judges Natalya Shuklina. During the qualification evaluation, it turned out that the judge Tsiukalo forgot to declare three land plots. According to explanations of the judge, he did not know (!!!) that he had owned almost a hectare of land not far from Kyiv. They said that he received it while working at the Prosecutor's Office, and the latter did the paperwork. This is clearly illegal and is usually corrupt in nature because, in exchange for obtaining land plots, the Prosecutor's Office has been closing its eyes to split-ups of land.

The appeal against Tsiukalo was filed in May 2019. In this case, the HCJ did not slow down and in less than three months refused even to open disciplinary proceeding. Such efficiency is conditioned by the desire to appoint him to the permanent position. It turns out that the lie during the interview at the HQCJ and the use of prosecutor's powers for obtaining land is not the violation of judicial ethics.