The lawyers talked about the progress of the pre-trial investigation and the essence of the case against the UAF management

It took place in the capital's House of Football a press conference of Andriy Pavelek's case. The press conference was attended by Miller partner, WCC practice manager Oleksiy Nosov, VB PARTNERS partner Denys Bugai and Moris partner Andriy Savchuk.

Abuse of state institutions

"I would like to start by saying that this is a custom case. If things happen in any case that go beyond the limits of the CCP, the law, and procedures in general, there is always an interested party behind it.

Who can benefit from it? If you followed this story related to the Ukrainian Football Association, back in 2017 there was a conflict over the struggle for the chair of the UAF president, which was actively covered by the media. The parties to this conflict include representatives of the so-called "Monaco" battalion, whose names you all know well. 

When we learned that detention in custody was chosen as a preventive measure for Andrii Pavelek in Lviv, we intervened in this case in order to prevent the use of state institutions by the hands of specific people who could benefit from it. 

Here the question is not only in this case and not in specific persons, but in principle. It turns out that you can use government bodies as someone needs. 

Returning to how the preventive measure was changed and how the pretrial detention center was chosen as it, I will immediately say that there were no violations of the preliminary preventive measure by Andrii Pavelek. All those circumstances referred to by the court in Lviv are far-fetched," Oleksiy Nosov said.


The case is under investigation exclusively by NABU

"Since 2018, the case we are talking about was registered with NABU, which investigated it for three years and did not report the suspicion to anyone. After three years of investigation, the National Anti-corruption Bureau changed the investigation by the decision of the prosecutor's office to the main investigation department in connection with the lack of evidence of the commission of crimes by the subject investigated by NABU. That is, Andrii Pavelko," Oleksiy Nosov reminded.

"When the case was started five years ago, it was conducted by NABU, because at that time Andriy Pavelko was a people's deputy.

For more than three years, NABU and SAP conducted an active investigation. Hundreds of procedural actions were carried out, dozens of interrogations, searches, dozens of documents were seized, and international legal assistance from Germany and the UAE was involved.

The result of the investigation was the actual closure of the NABU/SAP proceedings due to the failure to establish the nature of the crime on the part of Andrii Pavelek. The case was transferred to the Main Investigative Department of the National Police," Denys Bugai said in his turn.  

Transfer of proceedings to Lviv

"The case was already transferred to Lviv by the decision of the deputy general prosecutor. He justified his actions by the fact that the Main Investigative Department of the National Police seems to be performing its activities inefficiently. That is, the deputy prosecutor general believes that the main investigative department is ineffective, and the district department in one of the districts of Lviv will be effective. This is not only prohibited by law, but also normal logic shows that if your case is complex, with an international legal aspect, then it should be investigated by the relevant body - the State Security Bureau, NABU, SBU, but definitely not the district department. This is the first signal that the transfer to Lviv did not happen by chance.

In fact, the transfer to Lviv and the change of preventive measure took place on the basis of forged documents. The case is 300 volumes, it has not yet arrived in Lviv. Investigator, colleague, I speak to her, this colleague, with respect, but she only graduated from the University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs a year ago... The case did not reach, she did not see her, she has never been to Kyiv, and this investigator makes a decision to change precautionary measure. How can you make a decision without studying the materials or even receiving them?

By the way, why Lviv? Why not another city? This issue also worries us. We conducted an investigation as the defense side, and we send their results to the law enforcement agencies," Denys Bugai stressed. 


Illegal arrest decision

"This case was investigated by the GSU of the NP for two years and still reported the suspicion, initiating the selection of a preventive measure. It was detention with the possibility of posting bail, which was paid. The Kyiv court, in fact, chose not a preventive measure, but bail. 

After that, a very interesting thing happened. Due to the ineffectiveness of the main investigative department, this case was transferred to the Lviv district department, which directly contradicts the requirements of the law, which prohibits the transfer of an investigation case to a lower-ranking investigative body. 

And only in the Shevchenkivskyi court of the city of Lviv, without proper grounds, Andrii Pavelka was chosen as an alternative measure of restriction in the form of detention," said Oleksiy Nosov.  

Liability for violations

"If the investigation grossly violates the law (because someone suddenly wanted to), then only the court can and should intervene and ensure compliance with the law. It doesn't work any other way in a democratic society.

And the court's actions cannot in any case depend on a person's reputation. Reputation should not influence the actions of the court, nor the actions of the investigation, nor the actions of lawyers. Every judge, without exception, must know and consistently perform the tasks of criminal proceedings, namely:

— that no innocent person be accused or convicted;

— no person was subjected to unjustified procedural coercion;

— and that due process of law be applied to each participant in the criminal proceedings.

However, if the court does not fulfill its direct duties, then unpunished arbitrariness and chaos ensue. In our country, unfortunately, some judges forget that the law is above them and think that they are the law. Such actions destroy trust in the court and force judicial reform to stop such legal arbitrariness.

No one else sees this legal arbitrariness as well as a lawyer. And it is the lawyer's duty to stop it. Art. 43 of the Rules of Advocate Ethics establishes that "A lawyer should not ignore the violation of the law, the tactless and disrespectful attitude of the court and other participants in the process towards his client, himself or the legal profession as a whole and should respond to relevant actions in the forms provided for by the current legislation and/or acts of the RAU.

Therefore, a lawyer does not have a moral right to remain silent in the event of an obvious gross violation of the law by a judge.

The 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 the disciplinary procedure.

A complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court is the only way to clear the judicial system of judges who are not worthy of the title of judge.

This is in no way a pressure on the court — it is the lawyer's duty both to the client and to society.

Therefore, this speech of mine is not a threat to the judges, this speech is about reminder of duties and judges and lawyers.

I don't know how the judges are in this case, but the lawyers will perform their duties very carefully. And I want to assure everyone present of this," Andriy Savchuk said in his turn during the press conference.

Regarding the substance of the criminal proceedings

"There are no losses in the case. In five years, the investigation did not conduct an examination that would prove the opposite. Instead, every time new numbers appear, which are not supported by anything.

And the most important thing. There are no victims in the case. The funds used for the construction of the plant are UAF's own resources. These are not budget funds and not UEFA funds. UAF is audited by the world-renowned auditing companies KPMG, Ernst and Young. No violations were found during these inspections," Denys Bugai stressed.

You can read more about the documents in this case by link.

07.10.2023 09:00

Congratulations to Andriy Pavel on his birthday!

We wish good health, the most important thing for every Ukrainian &m...

11.07.2023 17:04

Officially. The court decision on Andrii Pavelko dismissal as UAF president has been canceled

The court did not extend the decision on the removal of Andrii Pavelek from the position of...

22.06.2023 14:20

Attention media representatives! Press conference on the case of Andriy Pavelek

On Friday, June 23 at 13.00 p.m. in the press center of the news agency &...

Subscribe to news