Dmytro Stryhun on CrimeaWatch

Negative Integrity Conclusion on Judicial Candidate Kukoba: Crimea Property Evaluated Under Russian Jurisdiction Framework

Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0000

What Happened#

On July 24, 2019, the Public Integrity Council approved a negative integrity conclusion on Kukoba Oleksandr Oleksandrovych, a candidate for a judicial position at the Higher Court on Intellectual Property Issues. The conclusion was adopted by all 14 members participating in the vote (out of 18 total council members), including Dmytro Stryhun.

Among the four grounds cited in the conclusion, Point 2 directly concerns a land plot located in Katsiveli, Yalta — a locality in the Crimean peninsula under Russian military occupation since 2014. The candidate held ownership of this 390 sq.m. plot since November 2013 but had failed to declare it in his 2013 asset declaration.

Negative Integrity Conclusion on Viktor Mykhaylovych Poprevych: Crimea Connection in Judicial Assessment

Fri, 17 May 2019 00:00:00 +0000

What Happened#

On May 17, 2019, the Public Integrity Council approved a negative integrity conclusion on Viktor Mykhaylovych Poprevych (Попревич Віктор Михайлович), a candidate for a position at Primorsky District Court of Odesa. The conclusion was adopted by 13 of 19 members, including Dmytro Stryhun.

The PIC cited the judge’s failure to properly declare his wife’s apartment in Parteniti, Crimea as a primary ground for the negative integrity conclusion. By treating undisclosed property in occupied Crimea as a declarable asset subject to Ukrainian disclosure requirements, the PIC implicitly recognized Crimea as territory where Ukrainian law applies, contradicting Ukraine’s position that occupied territories are outside its legal jurisdiction.

Negative Integrity Conclusion on Yesaulenko Maryna Volodymyrivna: Crimea Connection in Judicial Assessment

Sun, 12 May 2019 00:00:00 +0000

What Happened#

On May 12, 2019, the Public Integrity Council approved a negative integrity conclusion on Yesaulenko Maryna Volodymyrivna (Єсауленко Марина Володимирівна), a candidate for a position at Holosiivskyi District Court of Kyiv. The conclusion was adopted by 11 of 18 members, including Dmytro Stryhun.

The PIC flagged systematic visits by the judge and her family to occupied Crimea as requiring additional explanation, treating travel to and property ownership in the peninsula as integrity concerns. By characterizing connections to Crimea as potential character issues needing justification, the PIC implicitly treats the territory as falling under a foreign jurisdiction where Ukrainian officials should not have regular presence or assets.

Negative Integrity Conclusion on Liudmyla Petrivna Shestakovska: Crimea Connection in Judicial Assessment

Tue, 23 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0000

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, including Dmytro Stryhun.

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.

Negative Integrity Conclusion on Kartere Valerii Ivanovych: Crimea Connection in Judicial Assessment

Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0000

What Happened#

On January 18, 2019, the Public Integrity Council approved a negative integrity conclusion on Kartere Valerii Ivanovych (Картере Валерій Іванович), a candidate for a position at Supreme Court of Ukraine. The conclusion was adopted by 11 of 12 members, including Dmytro Stryhun.

This case does not contain explicit Crimea-related content that demonstrates the PIC’s recognition of Russian jurisdiction over the peninsula. The document mentions trips to the Russian Federation in 2015-2016 but does not specifically reference Crimea or Sevastopol, and these trips were flagged as general security concerns rather than being treated as connections to occupied Ukrainian territory.