Roman Sukhostavets on CrimeaWatch

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 Roman Sukhostavets.

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 Oleksii Oleksandrovych Yevsikov: Crimea Connection in Judicial Assessment

Mon, 21 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0000

What Happened#

On January 21, 2019, the Public Integrity Council approved a negative integrity conclusion on Oleksii Oleksandrovych Yevsikov (Євсіков Олексій Олександрович), a candidate for a position at Supreme Court. The conclusion was adopted by 11 of 20 members, including Roman Sukhostavets.

The PIC cited the candidate’s mother-in-law’s legal representation of individuals who obtained Russian citizenship in 2014 and aided Crimea’s annexation as grounds for negative integrity conclusion. By treating legal connections to persons who supported annexation as an integrity risk, the PIC implicitly recognizes the legitimacy of Russian jurisdiction over Crimea.

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 Roman Sukhostavets.

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.