Judicial practice: How court rulings can undermine trust in the judicial system.

Since 2014, there have been numerous reports in Ukraine indicating that certain judges make decisions, which raise questions about their objectivity and impartiality. Despite multiple attempts to reform the judicial system, the problem persists. One of the most high-profile examples is the recent decision by the High Anti-Corruption Court regarding the prohibition on the sale of assets belonging to pro-Russian Viktor Medvedchuk. However, this is far from the only instance where judges' decisions raise doubts about their objectivity.

A notable example of judicial decisions that also raise doubts about their objectivity is the activity of Judge Oleg Vaskovsky, who has served as the secretary of the judicial chamber for bankruptcy cases of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court since 2019. He has been part of the judicial hierarchy since 2002 and previously held the position of chairman of the Economic Court of the Transcarpathian region.

Vaskovsky, like many other judges, has repeatedly emphasized the importance of a balanced approach to case consideration and maintaining equilibrium between the interests of the parties involved. However, there are several aspects of his judicial practice that raise questions.

For instance, his decision on the bankruptcy case of ZAO "Zakarpattia Polymetals," a company that owns the largest gold mine in Ukraine, serves as an example. The enterprise faced a raider attack, accompanied by court decisions, including those by Vaskovsky, which, according to local media, were part of this process. The decisions favored companies linked to Vitaliy Zakharchenko, the former Minister of Internal Affairs and a confidant of Yanukovych.

In 2019, the head of the Transcarpathian village of Muzhievo, Vasily Fitsay, even wrote an open letter to President Volodymyr Zelensky, reporting raider attacks on a local enterprise and noting that due to the judges' decisions [specifically, Vaskovsky's], there was an attempt to seize land and obstruct the enterprise's operations.

In 2020, the Western Economic Court of Appeal recognized the investment intentions of Gofer Mining PLC as unlawful, demonstrating Gofer Mining PLC's inability to restore the enterprise "Zakarpattia Polymetals" and extract valuable metals from the Muzhievskoye deposit.

As a result, Vaskovsky became the subject of disciplinary investigations, particularly regarding his actions in cases related to the bankruptcy of CJSC "Belitsky Plant 'Teplozvukoizolatsiya'."

Vaskovsky also examined the case of the seizure of LLC "Vardings," energy equipment from the Kyiv plant "Energetik," which has been supplying electricity to several enterprises, including defense manufacturers, since 1998. It was noted that Vaskovsky postponed the hearing of the case and did not evaluate the actions of the "black notary," who illegally registered electric cables as real estate. Moreover, the court overlooked the fact that the owner of "Vardings" is a person still registered in occupied Luhansk, a former employee of the "Luhansk TEPLOVOZ" enterprise.

From Yanukovych to Dobkin

Equally high-profile is the case in favor of the notorious Dobkin brothers, where the decision was made under the chairmanship of Judge Vaskovsky.

Specifically, on January 28, 2025, the panel of judges issued a ruling in their favor, enabling them to fully take control of the "Vladimir-Volynskaya Poultry Farm" and the "Epicure" brand.

Judge Vaskovsky was handling case №914/2693/23 concerning the cassation appeal of Dmitry Dobkin against the decision of the appellate court. The ruling in question satisfied the claim of the company's shareholder and TM owner, Alexei Kovalenko, and declared the unilateral transaction of offsetting reciprocal homogeneous claims invalid.

As Kovalenko recounted, the Dobkin brothers initially "acquired" shares from him in a limited liability company (LLC), which was an asset management company and also the founder of other enterprises involved in chicken production and sales. The Dobkins did not pay for the acquired shares, but this did not prevent them from taking control of both the LLC and the enterprises it had founded.

At one of these enterprises, Kovalenko had previously taken out a loan. The Dobkin brothers exploited this by entering into agreements for the assignment of claims with this enterprise, which allowed the claims for the loan to be transferred back to the Dobkins free of charge. They then informed Kovalenko about the offsetting of reciprocal homogeneous claims, virtually extinguishing their debt to him. Subsequently, they began to demand repayment from Kovalenko for the loan provided to him by the enterprise. Furthermore, they started charging 3% annual interest and inflation losses on the amount of the fictitious debt.

As a result, the Dobkins gained corporate control over 59% of the LLC's shares and 100% of the enterprise founded by this LLC; created claims against Kovalenko amounting to over 12 million hryvnias; deprived him of corporate control over the mentioned enterprises and turned him into their debtor.

However, the appellate court established that the deadline for Kovalenko to repay the loan had not yet arrived, thus making the Dobkins' offsetting of reciprocal homogeneous claims unlawful. The court also provided a legal assessment of the existence of an Additional Agreement to the Loan Agreement, which extended the repayment deadline for Kovalenko's loan, and established that in none of the cases against Kovalenko initiated by the Dobkins in the Kharkiv courts was this document examined or taken into account at all.

Nevertheless, the latest of their four cassation appeals fell under the jurisdiction of Judge Vaskovsky in the Commercial Cassation Court, who annulled the ruling of the appellate court, restoring the existence of the "Dobkin scheme."

In rendering his decision, Vaskovsky completely ignored the fact that the appellate court's justification for its position was based on relevant legal conclusions from the Supreme Court, particularly regarding prejudiciality, according to which the prejudicial significance of a case is determined by the circumstances established by judicial decisions, not by the legal assessment of such circumstances made by another court, which commercial courts should not perceive as mandatory conclusions regarding the factual circumstances of the case, as provided in current judicial decisions in other commercial cases. At the same time, the other party should have the opportunity to dispute such prejudicial circumstances (legal facts) by referencing appropriate and admissible evidence.

Moreover, the appellate court's conclusion that there were no grounds for the court to question the original Additional Agreement to the Loan Agreement, which was reviewed in a court session, was also disregarded, as no evidence of its termination, invalidation, or cessation was provided in the case materials.

Legal experts also point out that Vaskovsky violated unwritten internal rules of judicial etiquette by considering "his" case before three similar cases involving cassation appeals from Mikhail and Dmitry Dobkin. These cases are №914/3474/23; №914/3476/23; №914/3478/23, which began consideration in other panels of judges in January (January 22-23) this year in the Commercial Cassation Court before Vaskovsky's case, and which were postponed to February 12-13, 2025, due to additional procedural necessity to investigate the circumstances of the case and clarify the situation. The original Additional Agreement to the Loan Agreement as evidence is indeed in the materials of the yet-to-be-reviewed case №914/3474/23, and clarifying the circumstances for it is essentially primary, while the other cases (including Vaskovsky's case!) are derivative.

Now, other judges considering the three other cases will be obliged to take into account the motives that guided the judge in delivering the verdict on case №914/3477/23.

Oligarch with a Russian Passport

On the same day, January 28, Vaskovsky examined case №920/604/23 (920/1147/23) regarding the bankruptcy of LLC "Sumy Machine-Building Scientific and Production Association," which is linked to the sanctioned oligarch with a Russian passport Vladimir Lukyanenko, whose assets were confiscated for state revenue.

Almost all of the mentioned business entities (debtors) within Lukyanenko's sphere of interests are undergoing bankruptcy procedures while continuing their production activities. The basis for this is multimillion-dollar debts to the state (taxes, social contributions), employees, energy supply companies, and banks.

The tactic of these debtors is to artificially prolong the stages of bankruptcy, including appealing any procedural