The BCU's decision regarding Maselko's actions does not constitute pressure on him — conclusion of the HCJ

The High Council of Justice did not find any signs of pressure on this member of the High Council of Justice in the decision of the Bar Council of Ukraine No. 82 of 12 August 2025 on Roman Maselko's interference in the practice of law. The BCU document was adopted within the scope of its powers and was not intended to influence the activities of a member of the HCJ.

The High Council of Justice adopted the relevant decision on October 14 following consideration of R. Maselko's report on interference in his work.

Recall that Bar Council of Ukraine, having considered the statement of advocate Oleksandr Vikhrov, who in 2023 participated in competitive procedures for the position of judge of the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhia Region, stated the fact of R. Maselko's interference in the advocate's activities, violation of advocate's secrecy, and exceeding his powers in evaluating a candidate for the position of judge.

The High Qualification Commission of Judges recommended O. Vikhrov for appointment, after which the materials were transferred to the High Council of Justice. R. Maselko was the rapporteur on this issue. During the preparation and conduct of the interview, he demanded that the advocate provide documents and video recordings from the advocate's file obtained in the course of providing legal assistance, as well as explanations regarding the contract with the client. Separately, a member of the High Council of Justice disclosed information about the advocate's personal and family life, commented on his father's status, and made assumptions about the nature of his property relations with his ex-wife.

The rapporteur in the case Serhiy Burlakov, noted that the BCU acted within its powers as provided for by the Law «On advocacy and the practice of law». «The decision of the Bar Council of Ukraine No. 82 of August 12, 2025, on which the announcement posted on the official website of the UNBA on August 13, 2025, is based, although it contains an assessment of the actions of HCJ member Roman Anatoliyovych Maselko during the consideration of the recommendation of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine on the appointment of Vikhrov to the position of judge, it was adopted within the framework of the BCU's function of self-government of the bar to ensure guarantees for the practice of advocate and the protection of the professional social rights of advocates», - noted the member of the High Council of Justice.

The assessment of R. Maselko's actions provided by the BCU was an exercise of the functions of bar self-government aimed at ensuring guarantees for the practice of law, and not an attempt to exert pressure or influence. «The Law of Ukraine «On advocacy and the practice of law» does not restrict BCU in assessing the actions of certain individuals for compliance with the guarantees of advocacy, regardless of their status or procedure, - the speaker emphasized. - Therefore, it can be concluded that the decision... is not intended to interfere with the activities of a member of the High Council of Justice. The circumstances highlighted in the BCU's decision of 12 August 2025 No. 82 reflect the personal views of its authors and their evaluative judgments made in the exercise of their statutory powers to ensure the guarantees of the practice of law».

In addition, S. Burlakov pointed out that there was no interference, since the issue addressed by the BCU's position had already been resolved at the time of its publication. «Since the adoption of the HCJ decision of June 3, 2025, the possibility of interference in the activities of a member of the HCJ ... with the aim of persuading him to perform or not perform certain procedural actions or make a certain decision during the consideration of the HQCJ's recommendation on the appointment of Vikhrov to the position of judge of the Commercial Court of Zaporizhzhia Region has been excluded», - he explained.

As for the BCU's appeal on the issue to the HCJ, international institutions or the Ethics council, in the opinion of the speaker, this is the exercise of the right to appeal, guaranteed by Article 40 of the Constitution of Ukraine, and cannot in itself be regarded as interference.

Considering the above, I believe that by adopting the decision of 12 August 2025, the Bar Council of Ukraine exercised its powers as defined by the Law of Ukraine «On advocacy and the practice of law», which cannot be regarded as interference in the activities of a member of the HCJ. Therefore, during the inspection, no information was found that would indicate direct interference in the activities of a member of the HCJ or a real threat to the conscientious and impartial exercise of his powers, as defined by the Law of Ukraine «On the High Council of Justice», - concluded S. Burlakov.

It is noteworthy that the HCJ included in the operative part of its decision a position on the need to refrain from statements and decisions that undermine the authority of justice and discredit the activities of the Council, forgetting to indicate the content of the conclusions adopted as a result of the consideration of R. Maselko's claims.