Maksym Sereda on CrimeaWatch

Approval of Integrity Indicators Equating Visits to Occupied Crimea with Travel to the Russian Federation

Wed, 16 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0000

What Happened#

On December 16, 2020, the Public Integrity Council approved a revised edition of the “Indicators for Determining Non-Compliance of Judges (Candidates for Judicial Office) with Criteria of Integrity and Professional Ethics.”

The decision was adopted unanimously — 15 votes out of 15 members present — including Maksym Sereda.

Paragraph 1.5 of the Indicators categorized as problematic behavior the act of visiting the Russian Federation after the start of armed aggression, as well as visiting “temporarily occupied territories.” Crimea and Sevastopol fall within the definition of temporarily occupied territories.

Negative Integrity Conclusion on Vitalii Viacheslavovych Amelokhin: Crimea Connection in Judicial Assessment

Sun, 15 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000

What Happened#

On November 15, 2020, the Public Integrity Council approved a negative integrity conclusion on Vitalii Viacheslavovych Amelokhin (Амельохін Віталій В’ячеславович), a candidate for a position at Okruzhnyi Administrative Court of Kyiv. The conclusion was adopted by 9 of 15 members, including Maksym Sereda.

Document does not contain specific mentions of Crimea connections. It only cites the judge’s travel to Russian Federation via Domodedovo airport in 2015, without indicating property or relatives in Crimea/Sevastopol.

Negative Integrity Conclusion on Hurenko Maksym Oleksandrovych: Crimea Connection in Judicial Assessment

Sat, 05 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0000

What Happened#

On October 5, 2019, the Public Integrity Council approved a negative integrity conclusion on Hurenko Maksym Oleksandrovych (Гуренко Максим Олександрович), a candidate for a position at Izyum City District Court of Kharkiv Oblast. The conclusion was adopted by 11 of 18 members, including Maksym Sereda.

The PIC flagged the judge’s May 2014 travel to ’territory of the aggressor state’ after Russian armed aggression as requiring explanation. By characterizing post-occupation travel to Russian-controlled territory as a judicial independence risk, the PIC operationally treats this territory as under Russian jurisdiction rather than Ukrainian sovereign territory under illegal occupation.

Negative Integrity Conclusion on Inna Mykhailivna Otrosh: Crimea Connection in Judicial Assessment

Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0000

What Happened#

On July 3, 2019, the Public Integrity Council approved a negative integrity conclusion on Inna Mykhailivna Otrosh (Отрош Інна Михайлівна), a candidate for a position at Commercial Court of Kyiv. The conclusion was adopted by 15 of 18 members, including Maksym Sereda.

The PIC flagged unverified reports that the judge’s mother allegedly moved to Yalta after annexation and got employed in an illegitimate court, and that the judge visited Crimea in summer 2014. By treating these Crimea connections as integrity concerns requiring explanation, the PIC implicitly treats occupied Crimea as Russian territory rather than temporarily occupied Ukrainian territory.

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 Maksym Sereda.

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.