The Accounting Chamber conducted an audit of the organizational support for the activities of the judicial authorities, paying special attention to the working conditions of the capital’s courts.
This is reported by Kyiv24
Problems with Facilities at the Kyiv District Administrative Court
According to the audit report, for almost three years the Kyiv District Administrative Court has been forced to operate under difficult conditions after receiving cases and materials from the liquidated Kyiv District Administrative Court. A significant shortage of space has compelled the court to store cases directly in the offices of judges, secretaries, assistants, and even in the courtrooms.
Critical Condition of the Pechersk District Court Archive
The Pechersk District Court of Kyiv has been functioning under excessive strain for over seven years. As of today, it lacks more than 50% of the necessary space for courtrooms, and the availability of archival space is only 17% of what is needed.
The court’s archival materials are stored in a building located at 2-A Maksym Kryvonos Street. This facility is not equipped with electricity or heating, and its walls, floor, and ceiling are damaged and covered with mold. There is no proper equipment for the safe storage of court cases.
“At the same time, the search and selection of buildings for the placement of courts was carried out by the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine (SJA) without officially approved requirements and criteria. The selection of buildings was conducted by the territorial offices of the SJA of Ukraine. Priority was given to state-owned buildings. At the same time, the SJA of Ukraine did not ensure control over the process of renting premises, the Accounting Chamber notes.”
Particular attention was paid to the issues of renting court premises. For example, since 2012, the Northern Appeal Economic Court has been located in the premises of a subsidiary of “Gas of Ukraine” of NJSC “Naftogaz of Ukraine” under a 10-year lease agreement. After the lease term ended in 2019, a sublease agreement was signed with annual extensions. Meanwhile, the SJA of Ukraine did not ensure the court had its own building, which creates potential risks for the independence of the judicial system. The placement of the court in premises owned by a business entity controlled by the state but not accountable to the judiciary may indicate a potential conflict of interest and affect the perception of the court’s independence.