{"id":8158,"date":"2025-04-10T11:11:24","date_gmt":"2025-04-10T08:11:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/04\/case-no-990-151-24-dated-01-04-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-04-10T11:11:24","modified_gmt":"2025-04-10T08:11:24","slug":"case-no-990-151-24-dated-01-04-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/04\/case-no-990-151-24-dated-01-04-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Case No. 990\/151\/24 dated 01\/04\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the summary of the court decision:<\/p>\n

1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) to refuse PERSON_1 a recommendation for a judge’s position due to alleged non-compliance with integrity criteria.<\/p>\n

2. Main arguments of the court:
\n– The HQCJ did not provide convincing evidence of the candidate’s lack of integrity
\n– The plaintiff voluntarily disclosed information about his wife’s lease relations
\n– Absence of clear references to legislative violations in the HQCJ’s decision
\n– Formal approach by the Commission in assessing the candidate’s actions without considering the context<\/p>\n

3. Court decision: Recognize the HQCJ’s decision as unlawful, cancel it, and oblige the commission to conduct a repeated interview with the candidate.<\/p>\n

Note: The court deviated from the previous HQCJ practice regarding assessing candidates’ integrity for a judge’s position, emphasizing the need for a deep and comprehensive analysis of circumstances.<\/p>\n

Full text by link<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is the translation of the summary of the court decision: 1. Subject of the dispute: Challenging the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) to refuse PERSON_1 a recommendation for a judge’s position due to alleged non-compliance with integrity criteria. 2. Main arguments of the court: – The HQCJ did not provide…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[57,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8158","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-court-practice-ukraine","category-eu-legislation-important","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8158","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}