Loss of an impeccable business reputation as a basis for the dismissal of Deputy Chairmen of the NBU
The loss of an impeccable business reputation is the only reason for the dismissal; it can be quickly implemented if there is an intention to completely renew the composition of the NBU Board.
The Council of the National Bank is deliberately preparing the ground for the dismissal of Yekaterina Rozhkova and Dmitry Sologub, and the Chairman of the National Bank, Kirill Shevchenko, will soon make an appropriate submissions.
This conclusion follows from the analysis of the cases of dismissal of deputy heads of the NBU established in the law.
The announcement of a demerit and expression of distrust, and even with the motivation “for violation of NBU regulations, the NBU Employee Code of Ethics, internal regulations for NBU employees, violation of the requirements of the Labor Code of Ukraine” indicates that the National Bank’s lawyers have elaborated scenarios of judicial protection and the selection of tactics of possible protection.
By the way, the expression of distrust is rather an informational reason for attracting attention and creating an impression in society about the loss of an impeccable business reputation.
It is necessary to withdraw from the presumption of impeccable business reputation in the absence of signs of an impeccable business reputation. This approach was consolidated by the National Bank in 2018 in the Regulation on licensing of banks.
Information on the court disputes considered on the merits on the illegal dismissal of the deputy head of the National Bank in case of loss of an impeccable business reputation is absent in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.
That is why this is equation with many unknowns and the most difficult thing is to predict some unpredictable future judicial interpretation of the concept of “loss of an impeccable business reputation.”
The feature of the loss of impeccable business reputation can, in particular, be
- the existence of criminal record that has not been canceled and has not been removed in accordance with the law;
- the existence of identified violations of the requirements of the legislation on the prevention and combating corruption and the legislation on financial services;
- application of sanctions against a person by Ukraine, by foreign states (except for states carrying out armed aggression against Ukraine), interstate associations or international organizations;
- possession of major shareholding of the bank on any date during the year before the date of the decision to classify the bank as insolvent or to revoke the bank’s banking license at the initiative of the National Bank);
- significant and / or systematic violations by a person of the requirements of banking, financial, currency, tax legislation, legislation on financial monitoring, legislation on securities, joint stock companies and the stock market.
It seems that the lawyers of the National Bank also relied on the justification of the inconsistency of the activities of the Deputy Chairmen of the NBU with the standards of business practice and / or professional ethics.
I am convinced that the NBU will try to justify the absence of relations of a public law nature and reduce the issue to a dispute arising from labor relations. This position can be evidenced by the decision of the Civil Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court of June 10, 2020 (http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/89903274).
So, earlier the people’s deputy Lutsenko I.V. unsuccessfully tried to attack the business reputation of K.V. Rozhkova, although he succeeded in the Darnitskiy district court of Kiev, in securing well-known claim on banning the exercise of the powers of the Deputy Chairman of the NBU.
10.06.2020 The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal of Lutsenko against the Resolution of the appeal, which refused to secure the claim, effectively “cementing” the civil jurisdiction of the dispute. Consideration of the case in the Supreme Court was not be hindered by the fact that the claim of People’s Deputy Lutsenko was returned by the Rulling of the court of first instance 1.5 years earlier (http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/81099040).
To be continued …
