Vitaly Porovsky //polissya.net, visual processing and collage — “The Fourth Estate”, Vlad Martynchuk
Vitaliy Porovsky resigned from the Vladimiretsky District Court the day after the searches by NABU and SBU. Then two bars of gold with a total value of 244 thousand hryvnias were found in his office, according to the investigator of the anti-corruption prosecutor's office. He reportedly suffered significant damage for 9 months, which was under investigation. Also, during this time, two gold bars worth a quarter of a million were seized during a search in his office.
This judge was obviously in poverty long before, even though he had a salary of about 80 thousand hryvnias. He lived in a hostel and sued for a long time to get “comfortable housing.
What else did the former demand in the courts? Read about judge Vitaliy Porovsky, who was previously an inspector of the department for combating the theft of socialist property, and how he managed to avoid criminal liability in the material.
Searches by NABU and SBU
At the end of 2019, law enforcement officers received information that two judges of the Vladimiretsky District Court were making decisions in exchange for money. Then, investigative and search actions were carried out for nearly two months.
On February 12, 2020, employees of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Security Service of Ukraine searched the offices of judges Vitaly Porovsky and Leonid Zakrevsky in the Vladimiretsky District Court, and also searched the premises of a local lawyer who was an intermediary between judges and bribe givers.
Later, the intermediary lawyer confesses to the crime, cooperates with the investigation, and is fined 25,500 hryvnias.
Judge Leonid Zakrevskiy, who was the court's chairman at that time, is also subjected to home searches. They find and seize dollars, euros and hryvnias. Subsequently, suspicion is announced to him and the case is sent to the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court, where it is still pending.
Leonid Zakrevsky manages to avoid the anti-corruption court for more than three years, and at this rate, the period of prosecution may expire before the verdict is announced in the case.
Two gold bars, weighing 100 grams each, were found in Judge Vitaly Porovsky's office along with a bank receipt for their purchase, with the buyer's signature. The ingots and the receipt are treated as material evidence and are seized, which will last until November 2020.
Commodity expertise has established that the cost of the ingots is 244 thousand 294 hryvnia.
</blockquote
They are being returned after two criminal proceedings against Porovsky had to be closed, because the Constitutional Court abolished criminal liability for crimes that incriminated the former judge.
Judges decriminalize corruption crimes
The next day after the searches, on February 13, 2020, Vitaly Porovsky writes a letter of resignation of his own free will, although he should have been fired a long time ago because he did not confirm his judicial professionalism during the certification.
Two criminal proceedings were opened against him. These are:
- declaring false information (the two ingots found in his office were not listed in any of Porovsky's electronic declarations, including the one before his dismissal);
- Issuance by a judge (judges) of a knowingly unjust verdict, decision, ruling or resolution.
But the Constitutional Court, on the proposal of 55 people's deputies, first in June 2020 recognizes Article 375 of the Criminal Code as unconstitutional: if the judge makes a deliberately unjust decision.
And in October of the same year, Article 366-1 of the Criminal Code is also made unconstitutional about unreliable declaration.
Criminal proceedings are closed, the ingots are returned to the owner, and Porovsky himself turns to the office of the Prosecutor General. He wants criminal proceedings to be opened against the NABU detective and the investigator of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office.
In his opinion, they abused their power, the ingots “were unjustifiably kept by the pre-trial investigation body”, while Porovsky, meanwhile, experienced “significant damage” for 9 months.
They say that their cost is less than it is necessary to open criminal proceedings and the found gold allegedly has nothing to do with the purpose of the search.
But the Office of the Prosecutor General does not enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations. Porovsky appeals to the court to oblige him to do this. Both the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court and the Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court refuse the ex-judge.
Vitaly Porovsky. Work in Russia and scandals
Vitaly Porovsky was appointed a judge of the Vladimiretsky District Court, initially for five years – from December 24, 2004. And at the end of 2010, he became a judge for an indefinite period.
In 2016, judge Vitaly Porovsky, screaming, pushed the crew of the ICTV channel out of his office.
Then the journalist Ekaterina Kurbanova explained this incident as follows: “By his decision, he evicted a woman with two sons from the house, one of whom is a minor. So I wanted to know what laws he was guided by when he made this decision – and he was up to something.
In 2017, Vitaly Porovsky called the police on lawyer Nikolai Glotov. Judge Porovsky believed that the lawyer showed him disrespect by photographing during the meeting how he announces the decision without wearing a robe and a badge. After that, Glotov complained about Judge Porovsky to the High Council of Justice. Now Nikolai Glotov is a judge of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court.
Long before his appointment as a judge, Vitaly Porovsky worked as a policeman. In particular, in Russia.
- From November 1, 1976 to October 1, 1977, Porovsky served as a policeman of the united division of the Rivne city department of internal affairs.
- From October 8 to October 11, 1979, he worked as an inspector of the department for combating the theft of socialist property (OBKhSS) of the internal affairs department of the Kozhevnikovsky district executive committee of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Tomsk regional executive committee (Russia) (as a senior inspector of the OBKhSS).
- From October 11, 1979 until January 3, 1980, he worked as a district police inspector of the internal affairs department of the Strezhevsky city executive committee (Tomsk region, Russia). the area that Porovsky applied for in 2019 in order to receive more judicial remuneration.
Increased remuneration
Vitaliy Porovsky is twice suing the Territorial Department of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine in the Rivne region, which pays remuneration to judges.
Porovsky complains that the SAI did not take into account his work experience in law enforcement agencies. This is 3 years and 2 months – from November 1976 to January 1980. And in this regard, he did not increase the allowance for long service, but he cannot receive additional leave.
In 2017, the Rivne District Administrative Court refuses Porovsky.
In March 2019, after Vitaly Porovsky received the already mentioned archival certificate from the Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Tomsk Region, the Vladimiretsky District Court issued an order to take into account more than three years of the above-mentioned police experience and transfer the judicial remuneration and increase the bonus for the length of service in August 2019.
This order was based on a Supreme Court ruling in 2018 regarding a similar case.
The State Antimonopoly Service again refuses to recalculate and pay Porovsky. They explain that the decision cannot serve as a basis for this, since Porovsky was appointed a judge in 2005. While this rule is valid only for judges who became judges from August 3, 2010 to January 1, 2011.
Therefore, at the end of 2019, Vitaliy Porovsky again appeals to the Rivne District Administrative Court. And this time the claim is partially satisfied.
They enroll the length of service as a Soviet policeman and oblige the Territorial Administration of the State Anti-Corruption Service in the Rivne Region to pay the judge an allowance for length of service, taking into account this length of service.
Vitaly Porovsky. He sued the pension to the salary
Since February 8, 2016, Vitaly Porovsky has been registered with the Pension Fund, where he was assigned a pension by age. At the same time, Porovsky continued to work as a judge in the Vorodimiretsky District Court.
But the regional Pension Fund does not pay a pension to Porovsky. He explains this by the fact that, according to the law “On the Civil Service” and “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,” pensions are not paid to those who continue to work in positions “giving the right to a pension or a monthly lifelong allowance.”
<blockquote
The Rivne city court refused Porovsky.
However, the Zhytomyr Administrative Court of Appeal cancels this decision, deems the refusal and inaction of the Rivne United Department of the Pension Fund of Ukraine of the Rivne Region as illegal, and orders the payment of a pension to Porovsky. The norm that the Rivne city court used in its decision was temporary and was no longer in effect when Porovsky was granted a pension.
The judge who lived in a dormitory and sought “comfortable housing”
In 1999 and at least until 2009, Vitaliy Porovsky was the first to receive a free land plot in Rivne.
In February 2005, after being chosen as a judge, Porovsky was put on the list of those who have first priority to housing by the Vladimirets Council. He was then sent to work in the Vladimiretsky District Court after being assigned from another area.
However, Porovsky did not get a house.
So in 2012, Porovsky takes legal action against the Vladimiretsky village council, and later against the Vladimiretsky District State Administration and the Territorial Department of the State Judicial Administration in the Rivne Region.
But he requests to take their money and stop giving housing to others until he gets an apartment.
Around six months before going to court, Porovsky agrees to stay in the dormitory of Vladimiretsky Higher Vocational School No. 29.
It is unknown where he lived before the trial during all those years.
At first, the Rivne District Administrative Court rejects Porovsky's request:
- he mentioned laws and government decisions that were no longer valid at that time;
- did not follow the housing acquisition procedure, which required him to first submit a statement to the Vladimir settlement council stating that he was not given housing, get it approved by the Territorial Administration State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, calculate the housing cost, agree on an estimate with the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine, and then have the Vladimiretsky District Court decide on purchasing the housing using the state budget to give to the judge.
In late 2015, Judge Porovsky asked the Vladimir Settlement Council for housing. Yet again, he sues the village council for refusing him.
On March 29, 2016, the Kuznetsovsky City Court closes the case.
But on April 27, 2016, the Court of Appeal of the Rivne Region overturns this decision and sends the case back to the Kuznetsovsky City Court for further review.
The Kuznetsovsky City Court orders the Vladimirets Council to give Porovsky comfortable housing in Vladimirka, as a separate living quarters.
November 29, 2016, Porovsky's claim is partially satisfied.
The Vladimirets Council first appeals, then withdraws it a few days before the February 2017 hearing.
In May 2017, the Main Territorial Department of Justice in the Rivne region starts a process because the Vladimirets village council is not following the court decision.
p>
And later, from 2017 to 2018, Porovsky complains four times about the justice department in the Rivne region because he thinks the state executor is not doing anything to make the Vladimirets settlement council provide him with housing.
All four times, the Kuznetsovsky city court deems the actions of the state executor as illegal, and orders him to restore Porovsky's violated rights and report on his actions to the court and the complainant within ten days of receiving the court decision.
However, Porovsky still does not get housing.
Afterwards, he asks the Supreme Court to overturn the decisions of the Kuznetsovsky City Court and the Rivne Court of Appeal, which gave Porovsky housing out of turn. This is because these decisions cannot be considered legal and fair. There are 42 people ahead of Porovsky in line, and they have the same rights. So Porovsky cannot receive housing before them.
The Supreme Court also stated that the primary responsibility to provide housing to a judge lies with local governments. The State Judicial Administration only steps in if the Vladimirets village council fails to resolve the issue.
If the Vladimirets council cannot provide housing, it can be purchased using state funds and allocated to the judge's use.
The term “comfortable housing” can refer to a house, apartment, or service housing.
Porovsky did not specify the type of housing he wanted in his claims, but requested comfortable housing for himself (nearly 14 square meters) and an additional 10 square meters. He also demanded that this should occur within three months of the court decision taking effect.
Due to martial law preventing access to the electronic declarations register, it is unclear how much Vitaly Porovsky earned. Even though he worked as a judge for 14 years, he apparently could not afford to buy or rent a house in the village.
Vitaly's former colleague, Judge-Speaker of the Vladimiretsky District Court Elena Ivankov, states that the judge has been living in the dormitory permanently since at least 2006.
His monthly judicial remuneration included:
nearly 50,000 hryvnia official salary (equivalent to 25 living wages of able-bodied citizens in 2019);
- around 25,000 hryvnia in bonuses for performing particularly important work (equivalent to 50% of the official salary including the additional payment for the qualifying class);
- about UAH 7,500 in seniority bonus (equal to 10% of the total monthly salary).
- We were unable to find Vitaliy Porovsky's phone number or social media page to contact him for his response to our questions about gold bars, alleged illegal behavior towards a journalist and a lawyer, and his attempt to receive preferential treatment in obtaining an apartment.
Judge-speaker of the Vladimiretsky District Court Elena Ivankov mentions that Porovsky is not active on social networks, and none of his colleagues, except the former chairman of the court Vladimir Zakrevsky and Porovsky's assistants, who no longer work in the court, had his phone number.
Vitaly Anatolyevich had a mobile phone, but ironically, we did not have his number. He could not be reached when he was absent, but he was usually only absent during vacations or occasionally when on sick leave. He was almost always at work during working hours and did not share his mobile number with anyone.
He is not at all inclined to media exposure, and has always been very private. While we knew he had a mobile phone, he did not share his number with us. When we jokingly asked about exchanging numbers, he questioned the need as we saw each other daily. He guarded his free time and did not socialize with us during his leisure time. In essence, we did not share any common social activities.
– He is not a media person at all, he always avoided this. He has always been very closed. I know that he had a mobile phone because we saw him. But numbers… We once jokingly asked if it is a normal practice in our time to exchange numbers, but he said, why do you need him, we see each other every day. He was very protective of his free time, he never communicated with us in his free time. That is, there was no common leisure, – says Elena Ivankov.
Therefore, if Vitaly Porovsky has a desire to communicate and express his vision of the above situations, we will publish his position and answers.
Anna Khinochik, translation of Skelet.Info
“Dear Ruslan Solvar”. Could corruption in the courts and medical institutions help the ex-people's deputy avoid prison?
Judge Yukhimuk, who got burned on a bribe, turned out to be the owner of three good cars and jewelry
