Constitutional Court judges / Photo from UNIAN, by Viacheslav Ratynsky

Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) Oleksandr Tupytsky did not include in his assets declaration a land plot in the village of Koreiz in Russia-occupied Crimea, which he bought under Russian law in 2018.

This was reported by journalists of the Skhemy (Schemes) program.

Read alsoRada revokes accreditation of Slidstvo.info investigative journalists

Tupytsky owned an estate and land in Koreiz near Yalta even before the occupation of Crimea. But in 2018, he expanded his ownership, having registered another plot near the house in his ownership. This is evidenced by an official document received by Schemes from the Unified State Register of Real Estate of the Russian Federation.

In July 2018, Tupytsky (at that time he was deputy chairman of the CCU) signed an agreement for the purchase of land whose area is 126 square meters from Russian citizen Vladimir Rysyatov. But Tupytsky's income declarations neither for 2018 nor for 2019 mention the purchase.

Screenshot by Schemes

In addition, the contract for the sale and purchase of land in the Crimea was drawn up by Tupytsky according to the legislation of the Russian Federation, it was certified by the Federal Service for State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography of Russia.

However, according to lawyers, there are legal restrictions for Ukrainian officials on interaction with unlawful bodies created in the temporarily occupied territory.

Schemes tracked down the seller of the plot. Vladimir Rysyatov said that Tupytsky is his neighbor in Koreiz, as their villas are located nearby. "The borders of the plots were drawn up incorrectly," Rysyatov said. And he explained that he and Tupytsky had agreed to conclude a formal sale and purchase transaction under Russian law, although in fact "there was no sale."

Image by Schemes

At the same time, lawyers explain that if a judge received land in his or her ownership from another person for free, according to Ukraine's anti-corruption legislation, this can be interpreted as an illegal gift.

Image by Schemes

Director of the Status real estate agency in Russia-occupied Yalta Eduard Kiss estimates the market value of one hundred square meters of land in Koreiz ranges from US$5,000 to US$15,000.

  • Constitutional Court's controversial decision on illegal enrichment: Earlier developments

  • On September 16, the Constitutional Court ruled that certain provisions of the law on the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) are at variance with the country's Constitution.
  • In particular, the provisions on empowering the President of Ukraine to form NABU, to appoint and dismiss its director, to appoint three persons to the commission for holding a competition for the position of the bureau's director, to appoint one member of the external control commission to conduct independent assessment (audit) of NABU's effectiveness, its operational and institutional independence, and to approve the provisions on the Civil Oversight Council and the procedure for its formation were designated as unconstitutional.
  • On July 28, the Constitutional Court declared a presidential  decree dated April 16, 2015, on the appointment of Artem Sytnyk as NABU Director as unconstitutional. The decision was taken on a motion filed by 51 lawmakers. According to them, the then President Petro Poroshenko went beyond his constitutional powers and violated the ban on usurpation of state power. Also, the lawmakers argued that the decree contradicted the provisions of the Constitution, which contain an exhaustive list of the powers of the President of Ukraine.
  • On October 27, the Constitutional Court made a decision on a motion filed by 47 Members of Parliament, having repealed Article 366-1 of the Criminal Code, which provided for criminal liability for inaccurate declaration by government officials of income.
  • On October 28, Ukraine's National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) was forced to block access the register of government officials' electronic declarations pursuant to a recent ruling by the Constitutional Court.