Will the Constitutional Court break the Medvedchuk-Portnov system in the legal profession?
In January, the Constitutional Court began considering a constitutional complaint from lawyer Viacheslav Pleskach. This complaint concerns the “serfdom” in the legal profession. Every lawyer must unequivocally be a member of the National Bar Association of Ukraine and pay dues. Those who are not in the association do not have the right to practice the profession.
This monopoly is headed by a long-time acquaintance of Viktor Medvedchuk, Lidia Izovitova.
This “serfdom” in the legal profession was introduced during the time of the state traitor Viktor Yanukovych. At that time, the courts from Bankova Street were overseen by the notorious politician Andriy Portnov. And after the adoption of this law, the headlines in the media were as follows:
“Portnov is excited about the newly adopted law on the bar association.”
Screenshot from the website “Liga Zakon” .
It’s been 12 years, and today it’s clear why Portnov was so excited. All these years, the Bar Association, which became a legalized monopoly under the control of the long-time acquaintance Medvedchuk, has been operating.
On the organization’s website, you can even see a photo of Izovitova with a “colleague” from Russia, Yuriy Pylypenko, who is listed as an “Assistant to the Occupation Authorities” in one of the lists created by the International Anti-Corruption Foundation (an organization of Navalny supporters).
Screenshot from the website of the Bar Association, 2019
And at the end of 2023, a spokesperson appeared in the Association — Oleksiy Shevchuk. He is a former defender of the now deceased traitor Ilya Kiva and Nadia Savchenko. The surname Shevchuk recently appeared in a journalistic investigation into schemes related to men crossing the border and the “Shlyakh” system in the Lviv region.
Screenshot from the website of the Bar Association
Colleagues from the legal profession have repeatedly raised questions about Shevchuk. Last December, he was deprived of the right to practice law. Lyudmila Novosyol justified her complaint to the Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Lawyers of Kyiv Region as follows:
“I have no personal conflict with Mr. Shevchuk. His disrespectful attitude towards the servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, towards their fulfillment of the constitutional duty to defend the Motherland in ‘hot’ spots, has outraged me. Because, judging by the content of Alexey Shevchuk’s publication, they send some criminals there for their unlawful actions.”
This is for understanding the quality of personnel policy in the Bar Association under the leadership of Izovitova.
And now, in the Constitutional Court, they demand recognition of the “serfdom” for lawyers as something that violates the Basic Law.
Pleskach, in a comment to the civic initiative Holka, explains that he filed a complaint because he does not want to be a member of the Association that ignores cases of our lawyers’ involvement in torture in temporarily occupied territories. At the same time, those lawyers who went to the front are facing oppression from the Association. This has already been reported by the civic initiative Holka.
However, the only way to leave the Association is by ceasing legal practice and losing the status of a lawyer altogether. Therefore, the complainant decided to find out if his constitutional rights are violated here.
It is worth noting that during the Revolution of Dignity, when conscientious lawyers defended the protesters, Oleg Polishchuk wrote that Izovitova apologized to the judges for their behavior. Furthermore, the Association welcomed one of the key police officials of the Euromaidan era, Oleh Tatarov, with his appointment to the Office of the President.
Therefore, the legal community has long been discussing what to do with such a “self-governing” organization. It is important to understand that the ten years during which Izovitova could have been in office have already passed, and elections for her autocratic rule are not held, hiding behind the war.
In the Constitutional Court, there are two senates that could have considered this case. However, it happened that the complaint ended up in the first composition, where 4 out of 7 judges are associated with the “Servant of the People” party.
One of them even served as a member of parliament – that’s Olga Sovgirya. Her appointment was quite controversial. As emphasized by DEJURE, it contradicted the Constitution and the requirements of our partners, who emphasize the need for competitive selection. Such an approach would have prevented the political dependence of judges.
However, questions had arisen about Sovgirya in the civil sector before. When President Viktor Yushchenko and fifty MPs turned to the Constitutional Court in 2010 to interpret provisions that could affect the decision on prolonging the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, the Court turned to the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv for the opinion of academic experts. At that time, Sovgirya worked there, and the conclusion of the then associate professor stated:
“It should not be considered by the Constitutional Court… as the interpretation… in this case is impossible and may lead to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine’s interference in political matters.”
As a result, the Constitutional Court refused to open proceedings, relying in part on this conclusion.
If we talk about violations of recommendations during the appointment of judges to the Constitutional Court, they can be systemic. Therefore, the appointments of Oleksandr Petryshyn and Oksana Hryshchuk, who were appointed based on the president’s quota, are not exceptions. And all these judges ended up in the same senate with Sovgirya, who will now consider the case regarding the “serfdom” in the legal profession.
Viktor Kichun was nominated for the position by the “Servant of the People” faction, also without a competition involving the public. This was reported by the “Schemes” investigative journalism project.
Therefore, the majority of the senate consists of those affiliated with the “Servant of the People.” This majority was formed not on ethical grounds, where there would have been a competition with consideration of public opinion, but through political instruments. Therefore, it is entirely logical that the issue of “unbundling” the legal profession now carries political responsibility for the “Servant of the People.”
However, questions arise in the civil sector not only about these judges of the Constitutional Court who are affiliated with the “Servant of the People.”
Viktor Kryvenko, another judge from this senate, is mentioned in scandalous recordings of Judge Vovk, published by NABU.
“In these recordings, Pavlo Vovk boasts that Kryvenko voted with both hands to cancel the illegal enrichment and thus did Vovk a favor,” said Galina Chyzhik, an expert at the Anti-Corruption Action Center, to “Deutsche Welle.”
Regarding enrichment, questions had also arisen about Kryvenko himself. He was reminded not only of 44 (!) land plots but also of a hotel in Dragobrat and a cottage in Bukovel, and he always worked as a judge and received a maximum of 30,000 UAH before becoming a judge of the Constitutional Court.
And Petro Filyuk, who is part of the same first senate, became the “Not. Honest” of the week for dubious acquisition of land and even more dubious wealth of the family. The interview for the judge’s position took place without the Public Integrity Council, which was not yet formed at that time.
But one thing is the recognition of the unconstitutional provisions of the Portnov-era law on advocacy, and another is the creation of new legislation, which needs to be created and which requires not only the legal community but also international partners.
In parliament, there is a relevant committee and subcommittee tasked with working on legislative changes. The Committee on Legal Policy is led by Denis Maslov, and the subcommittee is headed by Volodymyr Vatras. Both are members of the “Servant of the People” party.
The European Commission emphasized in its report:
“An independent, professional, and accountable legal profession is a key prerequisite for access to justice and an effective market economy. The legal profession in Ukraine requires reform. The Law on Advocacy should conform to the Constitution, European standards, and best practices. In particular, self-governance and management of legal profession resources need to be improved and made more transparent and accountable. Qualification and disciplinary procedures for lawyers require significant improvements both in law and in practice. The process of admission to the profession remains weak and vulnerable to corruption risks, undermining trust and independence in this profession.”
An excerpt from the Euro Commission report
(It’s worth adding that in the same report, our partners also emphasized the need for us to refrain from adopting the bill on urban planning reform (5655). However, the government stubbornly ignores these recommendations, which are important on the path to EU accession, and the Ministry of Regional Development is currently trying to achieve through a government resolution what it failed to push through with the bill, in violation of the Constitution).
The demand for reforming the legal profession in Ukraine is also not being rushed to be fulfilled, even though three months have already passed since the publication of the Euro Commission’s report.
The legal profession provides personnel for the prosecution and judicial system. Therefore, establishing quality functioning rules for self-governance and cleansing of the legal profession is one of the main issues that need to be addressed urgently. The legal profession influences both judicial reform and the investment climate.
After Porotnov fled the country, 10 years have passed. And because we are not proactively changing the system, even in the midst of full-scale war, Porotnov could realistically win the court case. The fugitive politician disagreed with being labeled a “pro-Russian figure” and “collaborator,” and after the publication by the Anti-Corruption Center, which addressed this issue, Porotnov sued.
And so, Judge Sergiy Vovk in the first instance ruled in favor of Porotnov, who claimed that the Revolution of Dignity was an unconstitutional seizure of power. It’s worth mentioning that “Hromadske” published audio recordings that could indicate Porotnov’s involvement in the occupation of Crimea. The decision of the first instance is not final, as the opposing party has the right to appeal.
However, given the situation at hand, we must understand the significant growth and ongoing influence of the Kremlin’s grip on the legal profession over all these years and the impact it has on the judicial system, even 10 years after Porotnov and Yanukovych fled the country.
Specially for “Left Bank”
