the judge reports. in this case , in 2017, oleg kryvenda himself received the conclusion of the stateinistrative court about non-compliance with the criteria integrity and professional ethics, however, this did not prevent him from receiving a positive decision of the vkk. mr. krivenda also received a negative opinion from the public council of virtue, ah, to which there were also a number of questions regarding the origin of his property and assets, and of course, it is clear that the chairman is in favor of such an approach. case m has, let's say, well, at least is biased towards according to this category of case, and therefore we can talk about a certain kind of such a conflict of interests, where the judge, being dissatisfied with his own conclusion public integrity council. ready to play along and help other judges who have the same problem. the grand chamber of the supreme court tried to explain its decision, but did so not very convincingly. in particular, the judges indicated that... they are changing the practice due to the fact that the legislator changed the law, and the v