Panel Including Serhii Prylypko Ends Candidacy of Seiiar Mazinov Over Crimea Residence

What Happened#

On 12 June 2018, a three-member panel of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine — presiding member Anastasiia Zaritska, and members Andrii Vasylenko and Serhii Prylypko — issued decision No. 259/дс-18, deciding the outcome of a special background check (“спеціальна перевірка”) on candidate Seiiar Serverovych Mazinov (Мазінов Сейяр Серверович), who had been admitted to a judicial-selection competition for local court positions announced in April 2017.

The panel’s decision cites several findings: Ukraine’s anti-corruption agency (NAZK) reported discrepancies between the property and income Mazinov declared and its own records, and he provided no supporting documents beyond a land-title copy for a plot in Crimea. The State Border Guard Service confirmed, in response to the Commission’s inquiry, that Mazinov permanently resided in occupied Crimea and periodically crossed the administrative boundary with it. The Security Service of Ukraine separately reported the same residence finding and noted that the contact details Mazinov listed in his application belonged to, and were used by, someone else — which the Service suggested could indicate an attempt to conceal his actual place of residence during the selection process. The panel also found discrepancies between Mazinov’s stated employment history and Pension Fund records.

Mazinov did not appear when invited to the panel’s 12 June 2018 hearing and submitted no further explanations. The panel concluded he did not meet the statutory requirements for a judicial candidate and terminated his further participation in the selection process.

The Crimea Connection#

By letter dated 23 March 2018, No. 14/5/2-958, the Security Service of Ukraine reported that Mazinov S.S. permanently resides in the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and, according to data from the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine, periodically crosses the state border of Ukraine along the line of demarcation with the occupied territory using his citizen’s passport of Ukraine.

— CrimeaWatch translation of decision No. 259/дс-18; original Ukrainian text in the source document (see Evidence).

The decision treats this residence finding as one of the grounds bearing on the candidate’s fitness — not as legally neutral information. The panel’s own operative reasoning ties the Crimea residence directly to broader doubts about the candidate’s forthrightness (his application listed a different, non-Crimean contact address), rather than isolating it as an unrelated fact.

Context#

This decision predates, and is procedurally distinct from, the disciplinary-chamber cases the Commission opened against sitting Crimean and Sevastopol judges in 2016 (also signed in part by Prylypko) — here, the candidate’s own residence in occupied Crimea, rather than judicial conduct during the annexation, is the fact given weight. Together, both categories of case illustrate the same underlying pattern documented across this site: an official state vetting or disciplinary process treating a person’s ordinary presence in occupied Crimea as a fact requiring particular scrutiny.

Verification#

• Official Commission decision No. 259/дс-18, dated 12 June 2018 (Ukrainian original), including the cited findings of the State Border Guard Service and the Security Service of Ukraine, and the panel’s signatures (Zaritska, Vasylenko, Prylypko). Quotations above are CrimeaWatch’s translation.