1. The subject of the dispute is the inaction of the High Council of Justice regarding the failure to consider the judge’s application to cancel his suspension from office.
2. The court motivated its decision as follows: The HCJ is not an body that can cancel a decision on the suspension of a judge, as this is not provided for by its powers. At the same time, since the plaintiff was suspended from office more than 13 years ago, and the criminal case is not being considered due to the impossibility of its restoration, and the issue of suspending the judge is currently within the competence of the HCJ as a body of judicial governance and must be considered by it as a collegial body, the court considers that the HCJ should consider on the merits the plaintiff’s application for the cancellation of the suspension in order to ensure the protection of his rights. The court noted that although the law does not directly provide for the HCJ to consider applications for the cancellation of suspension from office, however, in this case, such an issue concerning the career of a judge cannot be considered in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Citizens’ Appeals.”
3. The court partially satisfied the claim, obliging the High Council of Justice to consider on the merits the judge’s application for the cancellation of suspension from office, but refused to recognize the HCJ’s inaction as illegal.
