The main “hero” of this material was a judge who went on vacation without settling all his current affairs, for which he was punished. In the opinion of the disciplinary body, which applied the sanctions initiated by the prosecutor’s office, the issue that the judge had to decide was not complicated and there were no circumstances that complicated his decision either.
The Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice considered a disciplinary case opened following a complaint by the head of the prosecutor’s office regarding a judge.
The “complainer” informed the Council that the judge, during the consideration of one of the criminal cases, “ignored” the obligation to take measures to consider the petition of the prosecutor’s office – he did not extend the terms of detention of two persons accused of robbery combined with violence.
“The prosecutor pointed out in the complaint that the petition that was not considered by the judge actually became the reason for the impossibility of further procedural actions. The consequence of this was the expiration of the term of detention of the accused in custody”.
In mid-July, the prosecutor’s office filed a petition to extend this period for another 2 months, since the judge was “scheduled” for another vacation (from 03.08. to 04.09). At the end of July, the judge appointed a preparatory hearing for September 17, although he knew that the term of detention of the accused in custody would end earlier – on August 16.
The prosecutor’s office “asked” the judge to take this moment into account – to solve the problem before August 16. The judge “reacted” to the request on July 30 – he notified the prosecutor’s office that the application could not be considered before the preparatory hearing, and also accused the prosecution of pressure on himself.
The terms of detention expired, the citizens accused of violence and robbery were released, and the prosecutor’s office handed over the act of the judge to the disciplinary body!
The judge, full of strength after the vacation, declared in his defense that the charges against him were absolutely groundless, since:
72 hours! Exactly how much time the law gives the judge to resolve the issue, if it is not regulated (ambiguously regulated) by the provisions of the law.
The norm in regards 72 hours states that the decision by the court of the issue of preventive measures is implemented in the manner prescribed by Chapter 18 of the CPCU without delay, but no later than 72 hours from the moment of receipt of the petition.
From the beginning of the proceedings to the beginning of the vacation, the judge had as many as 5 days, but he did not solve the problem, for which he was punished, because the issue of extending the term of detention of criminals behind bars, which was completely solvable and absolutely not difficult.
The authorities continue to make sure that citizens provide themselves with housing! Not so long ago, the Ministry of Regional Development explained the nuances of a simplified procedure for the construction of a residential building, and now a detailed procedure for putting private houses into operation has appeared on the official website. Analyzing the process! […]
So, in the analyzed case No. 334/5077/19, the Ukrainian court considered the person’s petition for recognition and granting permission to execute the decision of the court of Tula, adopted in 2018, on the territory of our country. The sanction was required to collect funds from the defendant (international debt collection). The Ukrainian court notified the […]
Is the transfer of leased land to sublease without the consent of the owner legal? If so, in what cases? If not, when? What does the law tell us about this and how are litigations resolved between the parties to such legal relations, which, due to ignorance of regulatory rules, violate the law? Thus, lease-contractual […]
“On claims for foreclosure on the subject of a mortgage, the court fee is calculated based on the value of the pledged property, and not on the amount of the debt obligation!” – expressed the Supreme Court of Ukraine by the decision on the case No. 307/23/18 dated 02.10.19. The conclusion was made after considering […]
Professional legal aid often ensures successful appeals against the decision of the first instance court. See for yourself how events can develop with one fresh example. The pensioner, a disabled person of the III group, was threatened with a fine in the amount of UAH 10 200.00 and deprivation of a driver’s license for a […]
The Supreme Court of Ukraine did not allow the bank to prohibit its debtors from leaving Ukraine, since the CPCU does not have such a measure to secure claims as a temporary restriction of the right to travel abroad, even if a foreclosure procedure has been started with respect to mortgage property. Brief overview of […]
Entrust the settlement of legal disputes to the SPEAKER team of professionals! Get the highest level of legal services.
Мы готовы приступить к обсуждению Вашей задачи. Вскоре с Вами свяжемся.Back