Five judges from Odesa region held accountable: who received punishment.

From June to July 2025, the High Council of Justice held five judges from the Odesa region accountable for disciplinary offenses. Some of them received only service restrictions, while others resigned.

This was reported by the High Council of Justice.

Resignation of Petryuchenko

Myroslava Ivanivna Petryuchenko, during the consideration of the case, violated the rules concerning voluntary withdrawal, according to the HCJ.

In the context of the case, the judge satisfied a request for voluntary withdrawal, stating that the actions of the Odesa Court of Appeals to cancel her decisions violate the presumption of impartiality and neutrality. The Third Disciplinary Chamber of the Judiciary concluded that the actions of Myroslava Petryuchenko constitute a disciplinary offense. The woman received a penalty in the form of a warning.

Suspension of Kichmarkenko

In the opinion of the HCJ, Serhiy Kichmarkenko does not respect prosecutors — to support this, the judges provided several examples of disrespectful behavior.

Specifically: in one of the cases, Kichmarkenko knew that the volume of written evidence and documents was quite substantial (about 300 volumes), and the simultaneous presence of all such materials in the courtroom was impossible. Therefore, he repeatedly expressed opinions about which evidence the prosecution was required to submit and which the court was not interested in. According to the complainant, these actions exceeded the bounds of managing the court process.

Thus, according to the prosecutors, he attempted to obstruct the open defense of the prosecution's legal position.

Deprivation of bonuses from Ivinsky

Oleh Ivinsky was deprived of bonuses to his salary for a month.

This measure was applied due to a complaint that he was exempting drivers arrested for driving under the influence from responsibility. The judge limited himself to oral remarks and minor fines.

Overall, according to the HCJ, Ivinsky exempted 14 drivers from responsibility.

Deprivation of bonuses from the judge Vinska

The actions of the judge of the Dobroslavsky court, Natalia Vinska, revealed signs of unjustifiable delays in the consideration of the case, established by law, according to the HCJ.

Court hearings were scheduled with significant interruptions, and sometimes the consideration of the case was postponed due to the victim's absence from the courtroom, which is not a valid reason for postponing the hearing. The judge also did not take any measures to ensure the attendance of the accused in court. Furthermore, within the framework of the case, she had not considered the petition to lift the property seizure for more than 2.5 years.

The Judiciary sees in the actions of the judge a clear violation of disciplinary misconduct. As a result, a decision was made to hold her accountable for disciplinary violations in the form of a reprimand with the deprivation of the right to receive bonuses for one month.

Resignation of Murzenko

Maxim Murzenko exempted one of the subjects of a case from responsibility by applying Article 22 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.

The HCJ concluded that the judge, due to gross negligence, committed a disciplinary offense defined in paragraph 4 of part one of Article 106 of the Law of Ukraine 'On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges'. He received a disciplinary penalty in the form of a warning.

From June to July 2025, five judges from the Odesa region were held accountable for disciplinary violations by the High Council of Justice. One of them received a warning, while others received disciplinary penalties in the form of deprivation of bonuses or the right to receive bonuses. These measures were applied due to violations of rules during the consideration of cases and non-compliance with procedures established by law.