UHHRU has been asked to help in a baffling situation. In a cassation appeal lodged with the Supreme Court of Ukraine [SCU], V.A. Korsik has received two judgments apparently from the SCU which contradict each other. It has transpired that one is basically a forgery, yet neither the Supreme Court nor the law enforcement agencies are showing any great interest in looking into this.

Korsik lodged his cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against the ruling of the Mykolaiv Regional Appeal Court from 15 February 2006 on a suit brought against a farming enterprise MAGIC over the division of the enterprise’s property.  The ruling had divided up certain property: a tractor, trailer, lathe, combine, cars and other possessions of the enterprise.

On 3 April 2006 in a letter (apparently) from the Supreme Court of Ukraine (№6-7227ск06)* with the signature of the Deputy Head of the Administration of the Court Chamber on Civil Proceedings H.M. Ivzhenko, Korcik received a Judgment of the SCU from 15 March 2006.  This stated that the SCU, having considered the cassation appeal, had ruled to call back the case and reject the application of the enterprise to have the execution suspended of the appeal court’s ruling from 15 February which had entered into force. 

The parties needed to lodge any objections to this cassation appeal by 21 April.

However on 30 June 2006 Korsik received another letter (with the same issue number  6-7227ск06, but this time from 27 June), which contained Judgment of the SCU from 8 June 2006 with diametrically opposite content, namely demanding that the appeal court’s ruling from 15 February be suspended under the conclusion of the cassation proceedings into the case.

Things became even more interesting since the baffled Korsik went to the State Bailiffs’ Service in the Yelanetsk district of the Mykolaiv region which was supposed to be executed the ruling of the appeal court. The head of this service, in Korskik’s presence, telephoned the office of the SCU to be told that the Court only had the second Judgment from 27 June with the issue number 6-7227ск06 registered. That is, the office asserted that there was no first letter at all. So where did it come from? And what about the Judgment on an SCU form with signatures not yet dry and the SCU stamp? What about the signatures of Judge V.Y. Kosenko on both Judgments?

In a telephone conversation, Korsik related how he approached the prosecutor’s office over the issue of the forgery of the first Judgment and yet the prosecutor’s office did not find any evidence of a crime in such strange circumstances.

In fact it is absolutely immaterial whether the ruling of the appeal court needs to be implemented or not. What is more important here is whether it really is so simply to forge an already passed ruling or, when there has not been such, to forge a ruling of the Supreme Court.

There are two possible variants:

– somebody forged the first SCU Judgment since the SCU asserts that there was no such thing, forged the judge’s signature, the SCU stamp.  In that case there must be an individual involved in such actions, and accordingly, a criminal investigation to be launched;

– the judge, perhaps really passed two Judgments for reasons known only to himself, and then the issues revolve around an assessment of the actions of that judge, as well as why there were two Judgments under one number, although, as mentioned, the SCU deny the very existence of the first.

It would appear that the law enforcement agencies on the one hand have no interest in the forgery of a signature of an SCU judge, as though this was an absolutely normal and legitimate thing in the country. Or, on the other, there is the possibility of criminal actions by an employee of the SCU which is also something nobody in the country has an interest in.

On the basis of copies of the (apparent) SCU documents, UHHRU  has today (26 October 2006) sent a request to the SCU for an explanation of this situation. We will pass on any response we receive.

And the ones at the end of the line remain citizens, since their right to a fair trial in this country remains a pious wish, i.e. worth nothing.

Volodymyr Yavorsky

UHHRU

*  The originals of these documents can be viewed at: index.php?id=1161869226