HACCU Has No Right to Review NABU's Appeal in Pysaruk & Bakhmatyuk Case, Concludes Bar Association

The Office of the Prosecutor General has complied with the rulіng of the Pechersk District Court and closed the case against the former first deputy Governor Oleksandr Pysaruk and the businessman Oleg Bakhmatyuk concerning a stabilisation loan to VAB Bank

NABU has already stated its refusal to comply with the judgement, which is final and not subject to appeal, and filed an appeal спільно with SAPO to HACCU. The leadership of professional lawyers" institutes and associations consider such actions nonsensical to the extent that HACCU has no right to review such an appeal in the first place.

The leaders of professional institutes and associations have commented on NABU's refusal to comply with the judgement and its appeal to the Chamber of Appeals HACCU over its unwillingness to enforce the judgement and the decision of the Prosecutor General's Office to close the criminal case against Pysaruk and Bakhmatyuk.

Petro Boyko, Chair of the Bar Association of Kiev Region, inter alia, considers this case "an acid test for the reform of the prosecutor's office and the anticorruption establishments that have been reformed over the past several years". "HACCU is not stopped by its lack of jurisdiction. Even if SAPO and NABU are not happy with the Pechersk Court's judgement, they should appeal it to the Kiev Court of Appeal under the rules of jurisdiction and not the Chamber of Appeals HACCU. I guess NABU and SAPO employees simply do not have enough knowledge of criminal law and process to litigate before a court, which is not on their side", concludes Petro Boyko. "This begs one conclusion only: HACCU is the beginning to demonstrate very clearly that it is not an independent or impartial court, and that it is just a puppet with NABU and SAPO pulling the strings."

Denys Neviadomskiy, President of the All-Ukrainian Association of Retired Judges, stated: "Under the conditions of external governance, we are in fact witnessing an open disregard for the fundamentals of criminal process. Sooner or later, this was bound to happen. Flagrant violations of Articles 124 and 125 of the Constitution of Ukraine. HACCU has shown that its Constitution is Malleus Maleficārum (a medieval treatise on methods of witch-hunting - editor).

Zoya Yarosh, President of the Bar Association of Ukraine, believes that this situation deserves special attention, because "NABU's lack of restraint has crossed all boundaries." "Given the fact that the Judgement of 05.06.2020 by an investigating judge of the Pechersk District Court was handed down after the High Anticorruption Court had commenced operating, the judges of the Appeals Chamber of the High Anticorruption Court have no jurisdiction to review an appeal against the judgement of 05.06.2020 as part of case № 757/22567/20-k to the extent that any appeal a challenging rulіng by investigating judge of the Pechersk District Court of Kiev City isto be brought before the Kiev City Court of Appeal. I hope that it is a court of law that will, while delivering justice, draw all the right and conclusions prevent any law-breaking , because it is on the courts, and in particular on the High Anticorruption Court, that such high hopes were laid by the public when it was created and on the reform of the judiciary as such," concludes Zoya Yarosh.

Tetiana Kozachenko, a member of the Public Oversight Board, posted on her Facebook page that she also considers such actions by NABU a legal nonsense: "The Pechersk Court pointed to an obvious impropriety in Kasko's decision. The Prosecutor General reversed a clearly unlawful decision by Kasko. The rulіng of the Pechersk Court is not subject to appeal. The fact that NABU has appealed the Pechersk rulіng Appeals to the Chamber of the High Anticorruption Court is just another NONSENSE. The Chamber of Appeals HACCU is not and cannot act as a court of appeal in respect of the Pechersk judgement (as per para 20 of Section 1 of Article 3 of the CCP of Ukraine). There will be trust in government institutions only when they act in accordance with the law, and NABU is no exception. Because the manner in which NABU is acting is no different from that of those NABU is "fighting"."

Just as a reminder, the court has found the reopening of the case against Pysaruk and Bakhmatyuk by former deputy Prosecutor General Kasko unlawful. The case was originally opened based on allegations of misappropriation of refinancing provided by the NBU to VAB Bank during the banking crisis of 2014. An expert examination by the Deposit Guarantee Fund statements and by the NBU have confirmed that the proceeds were fully used according to their designated purpose and paid out to the bank's depositors.