Vadym Valko 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 Vadym Valko.

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 Vadym Valko.

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 Vadym Valko.

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 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 Vadym Valko.

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 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 Vadym Valko.

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 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 Vadym Valko.

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 Vadym Valko.

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 Vadym Valko.

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 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 Vadym Valko.

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 Vadym Valko.

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.