A potential conflict of interest involving senior judicial and prosecution figures in Bila Tserkva, Kyiv Region, has emerged following the release of public asset declaration data. Oleksandr Shovkoplyas, Chief Judge of the Bila Tserkva District Court, and Serhiy Luzhetskyi, a prosecutor at the Bila Tserkva District Prosecutor’s Office, have been linked through shared property ownership in the region.
According to entries in the Unified State Register of Declarations, on June 21, 2024, the judge’s wife and the prosecutor jointly acquired equal 50% shares in a 1,200-square-meter plot of land in the village of Fursy, Kyiv Region. The declared monetary valuation of the land is listed at 12,000 UAH (cadastral plot number 3220488300:05:002:0193).
In addition to shared property rights, public registers and official documentation indicate a history of professional interaction between the two officials within the local judicial system. Shovkoplyas and Luzhetskyi have repeatedly crossed paths in criminal proceedings, with one presiding on the bench and the other representing the state prosecution.
Records from judicial governance bodies confirm this pattern. Official materials from the High Council of Justice regarding case No. 357/8294/15-k document that in 2020, Shovkoplyas served on a judicial panel while Prosecutor Luzhetskyi actively participated in the hearings and filed legal motions. Although these courtroom interactions occurred prior to the 2024 land registration, they highlight an established professional relationship between the judge and prosecutor.
Legal experts emphasize that while joint property ownership or civil transactions do not automatically prove biased judicial rulings, the formal acquisition of shared real estate in June 2024 raises fundamental questions regarding procedural impartiality and independence.
Under Ukrainian anti-corruption laws and the Code of Judicial Ethics, property or business ties between a judge and a prosecutor involved in the same proceedings can constitute a potential or actual conflict of interest. Key questions now facing judicial oversight bodies include:
Whether Judge Shovkoplyas presided over any cases prosecuted by Luzhetskyi after acquiring the shared property on June 21, 2024;
Whether either official disclosed these property ties or recused themselves to prevent concerns over bias;
Whether the officials formally notified their respective oversight bodies about circumstances that could affect the objective execution of their duties.
The emergence of shared financial and property links between judicial and prosecutorial figures in Bila Tserkva could have broader procedural consequences for active litigation. Legal practitioners note that an unaddressed conflict of interest provides valid legal grounds for recusal motions against a judge or prosecutor, as well as requests to transfer jurisdiction or venue in criminal cases.
The situation warrants a formal review by relevant oversight institutions. Potential actions include administrative reviews and inquiries by the High Council of Justice (HCJ), the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ), and the General Inspection of the Prosecutor General’s Office to determine whether any statutory or ethical violations occurred.