Judge of the constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) Igor Slidenko believes that the CCU Stanislav Shevchuk the interest of the court is less important than their own. He said this in an interview ZN.UA published on March 23.
Slidenko, admitted that he himself voted for Shevchuk.
“I came specially from the hospital to vote for him. Mr. Shevchuk, who was a judge of the European court of human rights ad hoc, presented himself as a Democrat, a new man of progressive views, is able to change the CCU in accordance with European standards. But after taking office, put their interests above the interests of the court, the state, society. Disappointment it appeared quite soon, but some time there was hope that he’d come round,” said the judge.
On the question of why the letter demanding the resignation of Shevchuk was signed by only three judges, Slidenko replied that he found it “difficult to answer for others.”
“There are some judges who are warming themselves near Shevchuk. A number of colleagues have also repeatedly pointed Shevchuk on the inadmissibility of his action. And the fact that we have addressed, possibly due to our greater moral responsibility for the actions of Mr. Shevchuk as we came together in the constitutional Court, in extremely difficult times for Ukraine, after the Revolution of dignity, in the beginning of the Russian aggression,” said the judge.
He called the letter “the cry of the soul.”
“In my opinion, the actions of Mr. Shevchuk contain different violations of the law, and in this, as undue influence on judges, are signs of an offence under the Criminal code,” he Slidenko.
Shevchuk took the oath of judge of constitutional Court 13 March 2014. 21 February 2018 he became Chairman of the SIC. The decision on early release, the President of the court from office by a majority of the constitutional composition of the judges.
In March 2019 Shevchuk accused of systematic manipulation of the cases, regular violations of the statutory procedure for their consideration; amendments to the hearing of matters for which there are no legal grounds; official inaction and long-term absence at work; unlawful interference in the activity of judges; abuse of authority; and unacceptable politicization of the court.