Tymoshenko’s complaint regarding the search will be heard by the judge presiding over the Knyazev case: full details
This was reported by the Anti-Corruption Centre.
Supreme Court judges Iryna Hryhorieva, Oleksandr Marchuk and Viacheslav Nastavnyi have opened proceedings on Yulia Tymoshenko’s appeal against the High Anti-Corruption Court’s ruling legalising urgent searches of the MP’s premises.
Roman Verbovskyi, a lawyer at the Anti-Corruption Centre, stated that the judges had decided to hear the appeal despite the fact that, according to him, such searches are not, in principle, subject to appeal in the Supreme Court.
He noted that if the judges overturn the search order, the evidence obtained during the search will be inadmissible, including the money found in Tymoshenko’s office.
The CPC emphasised that in 2023, NABU detectives carried out a search at the home of Supreme Court judge Iryna Hryhorieva, who is presiding over this case. According to the Centre, this took place as part of the case against former Supreme Court President Kniazev.
At that time, according to the CPC, detectives found $50,000 at Grigorieva’s home, which they identified as part of a bribe intended for Knyazev and other Supreme Court judges.
Roman Verbovskyi stated that, in his view, Judge Hryhorieva is keen to establish a practice of overturning urgent search warrants in bribery cases. He also believes that the creation of such a practice would be beneficial both to Tymoshenko and to the Supreme Court judges from whom the money was found at the time.
As noted by the CPC, Tymoshenko had already attempted to appeal this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, but her application to open proceedings was refused, as such a ruling, according to this information, is not subject to appeal.
Following this, the Centre reports, the MP appealed to the Supreme Court. The CPC states that the Supreme Court should have refused to open proceedings on the same grounds as the High Anti-Corruption Court’s appeal, but failed to do so.
They also claim that previously, these same judges had repeatedly refused to open similar proceedings for suspects, as such rulings are not subject to appeal.
The Centre pointed out that Article 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sets out the list of decisions that may be appealed, and a search warrant, according to this provision, is not included in that list. That is why the Centre described the opening of proceedings in the Supreme Court as appearing to disregard the direct provisions of the law.
The statement also noted that this week in the Verkhovna Rada, MPs attempted to abolish the possibility of conducting urgent searches in cases similar to Tymoshenko’s.
The CPC recalled that in January, the NABU and the SAPO carried out urgent searches at Tymoshenko’s premises. According to the investigation, 40,000 dollars in cash were found in her office, which she was allegedly to hand over to other MPs as a bribe for their loyal behaviour in parliament and for voting in favour of ‘necessary’ draft laws.
The statement also notes that following the searches at Tymoshenko’s premises, law enforcement officers applied to the High Anti-Corruption Court for a search warrant, which the judge granted.
