UEFA Playmakers in Shpol on Chernihiv Oblast
Lawyers described the course of pre-trial investigation and the essence of the case against the leadership of the UAF
A press conference regarding the case of Andriy Pavelka took place at the Kyiv Football House. The press conference was attended by partner Miller, WCC practice head Oleksiy Nosov, VB PARTNERS partner Denis Bugay, and Moris partner Andriy Savchuk.
A press conference regarding the Andriy Pavelka case took place at the Kyiv Football House. The participants were partner Miller, WCC practice head Oleksiy Nosov, VB PARTNERS partner Denis Bugay and Moris partner Andriy Savchuk.
Abuse of State Institutions
"I would like to start by saying that this case is fabricated. If something happens in any case that grossly exceeds the limits of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the law and generally procedures, there is always an interest behind it."
Who could benefit from this? If you have been following this story related to the Ukrainian Football Association (UFA), back in 2017 there was a conflict over the UAF presidency that was actively covered by the media. Among those involved in this conflict are representatives of what is called the "Monaco" battalion, whose surnames everyone knows well.
When we learned that for Andriy Pavelka they chose house arrest as a preventive measure in Lviv, we intervened in this case to prevent state institutions from being used by specific individuals who might benefit from it.
The question here is not just about this case or specific individuals but the principle. It turns out that one can use state organs as they please for someone's benefit.
Regarding how the preventive measure was changed and why SIZO (pre-trial detention) was chosen, I will immediately say that there were no violations of Andriy Pavelka’s previous preventive measures. All those circumstances on which the Lviv court referred to are fictitious," — said Oleksiy Nosov.
The Case is Solely Under NABU
"Since 2018, the case we are talking about was registered with NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine), which investigated it for three years without informing anyone about suspicion. After three years of investigation, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau changed the suspect to the main investigative department due to the lack of evidence that the subject, Andriy Pavelko, committed a crime," — reminded Oleksiy Nosov.
"When five years ago this case was initiated, it was led by NABU because at that time Andriy Pavelko was a People's Deputy."
For more than three years, NABU and SAP conducted active investigations. Hundreds of procedural actions were carried out, dozens of interrogations, searches, dozens of document seizures, international legal assistance from Germany and the UAE was involved.
The result of the investigation was that NABU/SAP closed the case due to the non-establishment of a criminal offense by Andriy Pavelko. The case was transferred to the Main Investigative Department of the National Police," — Denis Bugay said in turn.
Transfer of Proceedings to Lviv
"The case was already sent to Lviv by a decision of the deputy general prosecutor. He justified his actions by saying that apparently, the Main Investigative Department of the National Police is ineffective. So he believes that the main investigative department is ineffective while a district office in one of Lviv's districts will be effective. This not only violates the law but also common sense shows that if you have a complex case with an international legal aspect, it should be investigated by the appropriate body — DBR (Department for Combating Organized Crime), NABU, SBU, but definitely not a district office. This is the first signal that transferring to Lviv was not just done casually."
In fact, the transfer to Lviv and the change in preventive measures were based on forged documents. The case — 300 volumes, it hasn't even reached Lviv yet. A colleague of ours, with respect I say this, she just graduated from the MVS university a year ago... The case hasn't arrived, she hasn't seen it, and she's never been to Kyiv, and this investigator makes decisions about changing preventive measures. How can you make a decision without studying materials or even receiving them?
By the way, why Lviv? Why not another city? This question also concerns us. We conducted an investigation as the defense side and we are sending the results to law enforcement agencies," — Denis Bugay emphasized.
Illegal Detention Decision
"This case was investigated by the Main Investigative Department of the National Police for two years and still informed about suspicion, initiating a preventive measure. This was house arrest with the possibility of bail, which was paid. The Kyiv court actually chose not a preventive measure but bail."
After that, something very interesting happened. Due to the inefficiency of the main investigative department, this case was transferred to a Lviv district office, which directly contradicts legal requirements prohibiting transferring a suspect case to a lower-ranking investigation body.
Only in the Shevchenkivsky Court of Lviv did Andriy Pavelko have an irreplaceable measure imposed as house arrest without proper justification," — Oleksiy Nosov explained.
Responsibility for Violations
"If the investigation grossly violates the law (as someone suddenly really wanted), then only a court can and must intervene to ensure compliance with the law. In a democratic society, it works differently.
And court actions cannot depend on an individual's reputation. Reputation should not influence court actions, investigative actions, or lawyer actions. Every judge, without exception, must know and strictly follow the tasks of criminal proceedings:
- so that no innocent person is accused or convicted;
- no one is subjected to unjustified procedural coercion;
- and proper legal procedures are applied to every participant in criminal proceedings.
However, if a court does not fulfill its direct obligations, then lawlessness and chaos ensue. Unfortunately, some judges forget that there is a law above them and think they are the law. Such actions undermine trust in the courts and necessitate judicial reform to stop this legal anarchy.
No one sees this legal anarchy better than lawyers. And it's precisely the lawyer who has the obligation to stop it. Article 43 of the Rules of Legal Ethics states that "A lawyer must not ignore a violation of the law, disrespectful and insulting behavior by the court or other participants in the proceedings towards their client, themselves, or the legal profession as a whole, and must respond with appropriate actions under applicable laws and/or RAU acts."
Therefore, a lawyer does not have a moral right to remain silent in case of obvious gross violations by a judge.
A lawyer must immediately react in the prescribed manner and file a complaint with the High Council of Justice and become a serious opponent of the judge in disciplinary proceedings.
Filing a complaint to the HJC is the only way to clean up the judicial system from judges who are unworthy of their title.
This is not pressure on the court — it's an obligation of the lawyer both towards the client and society.
Therefore, this speech is not a threat to judges but rather a reminder of obligations for both judges and lawyers."
I don't know how the judges in this case are, but lawyers will fulfill their duties very carefully. And I want to reassure everyone present that we will do so," — Andriy Savchuk said during the press conference.
Regarding the Substance of Criminal Proceedings
"There are no losses in this case. For five years, the investigation has not conducted an expert examination to prove otherwise. Instead, new figures keep surfacing without any substantiation."
And most importantly, there are no victims in this case. The funds used for the construction of the plant were UFA's own resources. These are not budgetary or UEFA funds. UFA undergoes audits by world-renowned auditing companies KPMG and Ernst & Young. No violations have been found during these reviews," — Denis Bugay emphasized.
More details about the documents in this case can be viewed here.
Read also
General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces: operational information regarding the Russian invasion (as of 06:00 28.06.2023)
"Every act of terror once again proves to the whole world that Russia deserves only defeat and trial." Address by President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky
Euro 2023 (U-21). UEFA adopted a decision regarding the disqualification of Vladyslav Vanați