JUDGE'S DISCIPLINARY AMENABILITY FOR DISCLAIMING ABOUT INTERFERENCE IN EXECUTION OF JUSTICE

This article is of interest to judges of Ukraine and organs, which execute disciplinary proceedings concerning them. Mainly, author's attention is concentrated on such offense: judge of the High Council of Justice and the General Prosecutor gave any notice in writing about interference in execution of justice, including appeal to judge by litigants or other individuals, including individuals, who were authorized to execute state functions on specific cases, if an appeal was made in other way than it was provided by the procedural law, during five days after he had been informed about such case. At the present, judges have any distinctness about interference in the execution of justice. Experts, who investigate normative principles to secure independence for judges of Ukraine, prove that despite the improvement of constitutional and legislative regulation, corruption, including telephone law and political dependence, is latent occurrence in the courts as result of long-term freemasonry. Judges who committed corruption acts are vulnerable to influence of official bodies, because they waive their independence for impunity. That's why judges don't advise about enforcement in each case, in other cases – they don't consider obvious cases of interference like “friendly request”. Given the foregoing, the question of defining the components of disciplinary offense is currently relevant according to paragraph 6 part 1 article 106 of the Law of Ukraine “About Judicial System and Status of Judges” № 1402-VIII, namely determination of legal content of illegal judge's inaction for disclaiming about interference in execution of justice (or any other influence for making decision on specific case).