DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY OF JUDGES UNDER ITEM 3 OF ARTICLE 106 OF THE LAW OF UKRAINE "ON JUDICIARY AND THE STATUS OF JUDGES"

Abstract

The article analyzes the practice of bringing judges to disciplinary liability under paragraph 3 of Article 106 of the Law of Ukraine "On Judiciary and the Status of Judges" (a judge's conduct that discredits the title of judge or undermines the authority of justice, in particular in matters of morality honesty, integrity, correspondence of the judge's lifestyle to his/her status, compliance with other norms of judicial ethics and standards of behavior that ensure public confidence in the court, disrespect for other judges, lawyers, experts, witnesses or other participants in the judicial process). It is stated that the controversial issues of application of this ground of disciplinary liability are caused by different understanding of the evaluative concepts of "behavior discrediting the title of a judge", "behavior undermining the authority of justice", "morality", "honesty", "integrity", "compliance of a judge's lifestyle with his/her status", "norms of judicial ethics", "standards of behavior ensuring public confidence in the court", "manifestation of disrespect". It is noted that scientific research on paragraph 3 should be directed not at the theoretical distinction between similarly meaningful evaluative concepts (e.g., "defames" and "undermines"), but at the analysis of practical issues of its application. The list of examples of judges who have been disciplined under paragraph 3 will be more informative than abstract discussions of the meaning of these concepts. It is stated that the disciplinary offenses qualified under paragraph 3 fall into the category of "significant" within the meaning of Part 9 of Article 109 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judicial System and Status of Judges". It is established that in most disciplinary cases under paragraph 3, judges are subject to disciplinary sanctions in the form of a motion to dismiss a judge from office. The author emphasizes that each judicial offense harms the authority of justice, and therefore it is very important to further research the issue of the correlation between paragraph 3 and other grounds for disciplinary liability (in which cases there is competition, in which cases the offense should be qualified as a set of disciplinary offenses, in which there is an ideal set). The article will be useful not only for disciplinary inspectors and judges, but also for complainants, as it will help them to understand which violations are promising in terms of appealing against a judge's behavior to the High Council of Justice under Article 106(3) of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judicial System and Status of Judges".