Search

Case of ex-judge Oleksandr Barannik on false declaration

  • Date of commencement of the case: 03/12/2019
Track case progress If you would like to follow the case, leave your email and get updates sent straight to your inbox
Case of ex-judge Oleksandr Barannik on false declaration Case of ex-judge Oleksandr Barannik on false declaration

Case description

Oleksandr Barannik, ex-judge of the Court of Appeal of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast, was accused of failing to submit e-declarations for 2015-2018. The appellate instance imposed a fine on the ex-judge, but later this verdict was overturned due to the scandalous decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to abolish criminal liability for false declaration or intentional failure to submit a declaration.

Barannik assured that he had not committed a crime: he could not fulfill his duty, having refused an electronic signature. Allegedly, he filled out all the declarations on paper and then sent scans to the NACP. However, Barannik did not send the consent to the processing of personal data to the NACP, although this was provided for by the procedure. Because of this, the National Agency could not accept Barannik's declarations.

Barannik's argument was that the obligation to obtain the electronic signature for filing e-declarations violated his constitutional right to a name and to use his own signature. Importantly, until the end of 2013, the ex-judge had no problem using the electronic signature.

The actions of the judge were qualified under Art. 366-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The first instance acquitted Barannik, but the prosecutor filed an appeal against such a decision.

The HACC Appeals Chamber overturned the acquittal; it found Barannik guilty and imposed a fine of UAH 45,900 on him with a ban on holding certain positions for 2 years. 

However, on October 27, 2020, Article 366-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was declared unconstitutional, so subsequently, ex-judge Barannik filed a cassation appeal with a request to overturn the decision of the appellate instance. The Supreme Court decided to overturn Barannik's sentence and close the criminal proceedings.

Earlier, the HACC had already considered the cases of two other ex-judges of the same court concerning the failure to submit declarations due to the refusal to obtain the electronic signature. Under the same circumstances, the HACC found Zoya Ponomar and Nadiia Posunsia guilty and fined them UAH 51,000. 

  • Proceeding No.: 42019000000000543
  • Case No.: 760/22550/19
  • Incriminated: Article 366-1
Instance Key parties Instance /Key parties:
CCC
09/11/2020

Panel of judges: Mazur M.V., Borodii V.M., Vus S.M.

HACC AC
07/07/2020

Panel of judges: Kaluhina I.O., Hlotov M.S., Chornenka D.S.

Prosecutor: Kasian A.O.

HACC
03/12/2019

Panel of judges: Zadorozhna L.I., Shkodin Ya.V., Tkachenko O.V., Shkodin Ya.V.

Prosecutor: Kasian A.O.

Infographics

CASE OF OLEKSANDR BARANNIK

Ex-judge Barannik did not file e-declarations for 2015-2018 because he refused to obtain the electronic signature. He was fined for this, but later the verdict was overturned because the Constitutional Court recognized the relevant article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as unconstitutional.

  • On June 3, 2020
    the HACC acquitted ex-judge Barannik
  • On October 5, 2020
    the HACC Appeals Chamber, after considering the prosecutor's appeal, found Barannik guilty and fined him almost UAH 46,000
  • On October 27, 2020
    the Constitutional Court of Ukraine abolished criminal liability for false declaration or intentional failure to submit a declaration
  • pic
    On April 5, 2021
    the Supreme Court overturned the verdict of the appellate instance to Barannik and closed criminal proceedings against him

Decisions from the Register

Case No. Court Decision date Decision type
760/22550/19 HACC 03/12/2019 On the appointment of a preparatory court hearing
760/22550/19 HACC 13/01/2020
760/22550/19 HACC 13/01/2020
760/22550/19 HACC 23/01/2020 On the appointment of a trial
760/22550/19 HACC 23/01/2020
760/22550/19 HACC 23/01/2020 On the appointment of a trial
760/22550/19 HACC 23/01/2020
760/22550/19 HACC 02/03/2020 Decision on the consideration of a recusal
760/22550/19 HACC 02/03/2020 Decision on the consideration of a recusal
760/22550/19 HACC 02/06/2020
760/22550/19 HACC 03/06/2020 Verdicts
760/22550/19 HACC 03/06/2020 Separate opinion of the HACC judge
760/22550/19 HACC AC 07/07/2020 Opening of appeal proceedings
760/22550/19 HACC AC 17/07/2020 Completion of the preparation and appointment of the appeal hearing
760/22550/19 HACC AC 29/07/2020 Decision on the consideration of a recusal
760/22550/19 HACC AC 29/07/2020 Decision on the consideration of a recusal
760/22550/19 HACC AC 29/07/2020 Decision on the consideration of a recusal
760/22550/19 HACC AC 29/07/2020 Decision on the consideration of a recusal
760/22550/19 HACC AC 10/09/2020
760/22550/19 HACC AC 22/09/2020 Decision on the consideration of a recusal
760/22550/19 HACC AC 05/10/2020 Verdicts
760/22550/19 CCC 09/11/2020 On the refusal to suspend the enforcement of the sentence / гіпотетично може може бути й про зупинення виконання вироку
760/22550/19 CCC 09/11/2020 Decision on the reclamation of materials
760/22550/19 CCC 09/11/2020 On the opening of cassation proceedings
760/22550/19 CCC 21/12/2020 On the completion of preparation and appointment of the cassation hearing
760/22550/19 HACC AC 18/03/2021
760/22550/19 HACC AC 25/03/2021 Decision to open proceedings on the application for revision of the verdict under exceptional circumstances
760/22550/19 HACC AC 25/03/2021 Separate opinion of the HACC AC judge
760/22550/19 CCC 05/04/2021 Resolution on overturning the verdict and closing criminal proceedings
760/22550/19 HACC AC 14/04/2021