avtomaidan experts believe that the fact that omelyan turned to viktor kryvenko for a recommendations not considers the above facts to be shameful. inna omelyan explained it this way. this person knew me personally and i knew him personally. then from 2013 to 2017, i worked under his leadership in the trial chamber with of administrative cases in the supreme court of ukraine, he as a manager, he knew my professional qualities and knows my professional qualities, as well as moral and ethical qualities regarding the decisions of the constitutional court , so i was aware of them, but according to the constitution of ukraine, they are binding on the entire territory of ukraine this person i made these decisions not individually, but collegially, and to give an assessment of the decision of the constitutional court, in my opinion, it would be unethical on my part regarding information about some of his other actions, i was absolutely unknown during the interview to the higher qualification commission and to omelyan, she repeatedly complained about the criticism of the judicial system by s

iniomelyan was submitted by judge viktor kryvenko of the constitutional court of ukraine for the competitionqualifications commission of judges. he is a figure in the so-called vovka tapes of the head of the liquidated district administrative court of kyiv. in particular, vovka, when he flaunted his influence on the decision of the constitutional court of ukraine to cancel the punishment of officials for illegal enrichment, indicated that he communicated on this very issue with krivenko, who allegedly voted for this decision at the request of vovka , also viktor kryvenko, in addition to supporting the cancellation of the responsibility for illegal enrichment voted for the abolition of criminal liability for lying in declarations, i may have neglected the laws myself, in particular, the national agency for the prevention of corruption established that viktor kryvenko did not indicate in the declaration that he owns a plot of land in the temporarily occupied crimea worth more than uah 4 million , automaidan experts believe that fact that omelyan turned to viktor kryvenko for a recommendation i

precisely with krivenko, who allegedly voted for this decision at the request of vovka , also viktor kryvenkosupporting the abolition of responsibility for illegal enrichment, also voted for the abolition of criminal responsibility for lying in declarations perhaps because he himself neglected the laws in particular, the national agency for the prevention of corruption established that viktor kryvenko did not indicate in the declaration that he owns a plot of land in the temporarily occupied crimea worth more than 4 million hryvnias, automaidan experts believe that the fact that omelyan turned to viktor kryvenko for a recommendation indicates that she does not consider the above facts to be shameful . inna omelyan explained it like this: this person knew me personally and i knew him personally. under his leadership, she worked in the judicial chamber for administrative cases in the supreme court of ukraine. they were known to me, but according to the constitution of ukraine, they are mandatory for implementation throughout the territory of ukraine. this person did not make these decisions ind