ABOUT US

Ministry of Justice of Ukraine vs Deputy Chairman of the Association of Private Enforcement Officers 

The case involved a dispute between the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine and a private individual, who is the Deputy Chairman of the Association of Private Enforcement Officers of Ukraine.

This dispute centered on the delicate balance between freedom of speech and the protection of institutional reputation. This case was significant as it was one of the first legal actions taken by the Ministry against a professional who criticized its policies, raising important legal and political questions.

The court ultimately upheld the right to express critical views of a high-level government body, reinforcing the principle that freedom of speech includes the right to scrutinize government actions. This ruling serves as a landmark precedent for protecting constructive criticism in Ukraine's public discourse. Further details about the Case №755/6351/21 can be found in the public register. The success in the case was achieved by Tetiana Ohneviuk.

Judicial Independence at Stake: Dispute Over Reappointment Delays by the President of Ukraine 

The dispute concerning the expiration of a judge's five-year appointment term and the failure of the President of Ukraine to issue a decree for reappointment centers on critical issues of judicial independence and the procedural obligations of the head of state. 

This case, heard by the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, raises significant questions about the President's role in the judicial appointment process, particularly whether the issuance of such a decree is a ceremonial function rather than a discretionary act.

Amid a judiciary staffing crisis, the case underscores the broader implications of presidential inaction on the functioning and efficiency of the judicial system. Further details about the Case № 9901/416/21 can be found in the public register. The success in the case was achieved by Tetiana Ohneviuk.

Legal Challenge Against the First Decision of the Reformed High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine  

The dispute concerning the legality of the first decision made by the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine in its revised composition revolved around important issues following a significant judicial reform. 

This case highlighted critical questions about the transparency and fairness of the judicial selection process, as well as the rights of candidates to pursue their professional ambitions.

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that the Commission had violated a candidate's right to respect for private life, particularly regarding access to the judiciary. This landmark case has since influenced similar disputes, promoting fairness and openness in judicial appointments. Further details about the Case № 990/186/23 can be found in the public register. The success in the case was achieved by Tetiana Ohneviuk.

Judicial Appointment Dispute: Higher Council of Justice's Refusal Due to Travel Concerns 

This case involves the refusal of the Higher Council of Justice to recommend a candidate for judicial appointment, citing concerns about the candidate's travel to sensitive regions. 

Faced with external pressures, including criticism from civil society groups, the legal representation argued that the refusal violated the candidate's right to privacy and imposed unjustified disclosure requirements. Ultimately, the Supreme Court annulled the decision, emphasizing the importance of protecting the private lives of judicial candidates and limiting excessive interference from appointing authorities. This case established important boundaries regarding the consideration of personal factors in assessing professional eligibility. Further details about the Case №990/2/24 can be found in the public register. The success in the case was achieved by Tetiana Ohneviuk.