All news
Supreme Court upholds judge's punishment for swearing and relationship with lawyer
The court ruled that the judge's close relationship with his lawyer, living together with him and sending him phone numbers for advertising purposes were ethical violations. The Supreme Court also ruled that the judge had inappropriately discussed a colleague's decision and upheld his removal from office.
The Supreme Court upheld the legal imprisonment of Udmurt judge Alexandra Khitalenko for violating ethical standards, RAPSI reports on the court's decision.
The court took into account the former judge's complaint against the decision of the Qualification Collegium of Judges of Udmurtia to terminate her powers early. The Supreme Court concluded that Kitalenko maintained an extra-procedural close relationship with one of the lawyers with whom he lived. The former judge also gave his phone number to potential clients for advertising purposes, which is in accordance with justice.
The court also found that Kitalenko had failed to consult with his lawyer at home. The judge and her partners explained to the guests the legal issues and judicial practice of considering specific cases specified in the Supreme Court documents.
Subsequently, a criminal case was opened against the lawyer under Part 3 of Article 30 and Part 4 of Article 159 of the Criminal Code (Attempt to commit fraud). It was confirmed that the victim in this case was a woman who came for a consultation.
The Qualification Commission of Judges of Udmurtia also found that Khitalenko used foul language in a conversation with a lawyer while discussing a colleague's decision on one of his cases. The Supreme Court did not refute this conclusion.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Khitalenko's actions to be "serious and culpable violations of the requirements of the law and the Code of Judicial Ethics concerning the status of a judge, incompatible with the high position of a judge and, therefore, constituting a disciplinary violation and requiring disciplinary action."
The court noted that Kitalenko, with his status as a judge and more than 18 years of experience, could not have been unaware of the requirements “based on high standards of morality and ethics” that the law places on the conduct of judges.
"The deliberate disregard is evidence of the mandate of A.G. Khitalenko. "This is a gross misconduct, unbecoming of the position of a judge," the Supreme Court concluded.