Negative Integrity Conclusion on Liudmyla Petrivna Shestakovska: Crimea Connection in Judicial Assessment
🎯 Position at Time of Violation
Position: Civic advisory body embedded in Ukraine's judicial governance system
Organization: Public Integrity Council of Ukraine (ГРД)
Period: 2016 – present
📄 The Document
Context: This quote demonstrates how the PIC treated the judge's interaction with Russian tax authorities in Crimea as evidence of recognizing Russian jurisdiction, thereby implicitly treating Crimea as legitimately under Russian control rather than as occupied Ukrainian territory.
⚖️ Why This Is a Violation
📄 Full Details
What Happened#
On April 23, 2019, the Public Integrity Council approved a negative integrity conclusion on Liudmyla Petrivna Shestakovska (Шестаковська Людмила Петрівна), a candidate for a position at Obolonsky District Court of Kyiv. The conclusion was adopted by 14 of 20 members.
The PIC cited the judge’s extensive property holdings in Crimea and her obtaining a Russian taxpayer identification number from Russian tax authorities in occupied Crimea as evidence of recognizing Russian jurisdiction. By treating these connections to Crimea as integrity violations equivalent to collaboration with an occupying power, the PIC implicitly recognized Russian authority over the peninsula rather than treating it as Ukrainian territory under temporary occupation.
The Crimea-related element was cited as a direct basis for the negative conclusion.
The Crimea Connection#
Also, according to data from the “Federal Tax Service” of the Russian Federation, the judge obtained an individual taxpayer number of the Russian Federation. For this purpose, she applied to the so-called “Interdistrict Inspection of the Federal Tax Service of Russia No. 2 for the Republic of Crimea” with an application for registration with the tax authorities of the Russian occupation administration on the territory of Crimea. Thus, by obtaining an individual taxpayer number of the Russian Federation, the judge actually recognized the jurisdiction of the occupation authorities on the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
This quote demonstrates how the PIC treated the judge’’s interaction with Russian tax authorities in Crimea as evidence of recognizing Russian jurisdiction, thereby implicitly treating Crimea as legitimately under Russian control rather than as occupied Ukrainian territory.
Context#
The Public Integrity Council was established in 2016 as part of post-2014 judicial reform in Ukraine. Its mandate was to assist in vetting judges and judicial candidates based on integrity and professional ethics. While formally an advisory body, its conclusions carried significant weight in qualification proceedings and could directly affect judicial careers.
Under Ukrainian law, Crimea is a temporarily occupied territory under the Law on Ensuring the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens and the Legal Regime of the Temporarily Occupied Territory (2014). The Constitution of Ukraine affirms Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine whose status cannot be altered without an all-Ukrainian referendum.
By treating Crimea-related connections as integrity risks within a formal assessment framework, the PIC applies an operational logic that treats Crimea as Russian-administered territory — reproducing the same premise that was formally codified in the December 16, 2020 revised Indicators.
Voters#
Verification#
- Official PIC conclusion document dated April 23, 2019, available on the Council’s public website.
- Electronic voting record confirming the vote count and participating members.
🔎 Evidence
- Official Public Integrity Council conclusion on Liudmyla Petrivna Shestakovska (Шестаковська Людмила Петрівна), dated April 23, 2019. document
- Electronic voting record appended to the conclusion, confirming the vote (14 of 20). document
- Archived copy of Official Public Integrity Council conclusion on Liudmyla Petrivna Shestakovska (Шестаковська Людмила Петрівна), dated April 23, 2019. archive