How to unlock the path to the EU: key reforms Ukraine must implement
The events that unfolded as a result of attempts to break the anti-corruption system have triggered a chain reaction of changes that, it seems, is far from over.
The brutality of this attempt, along with the reaction of Ukrainians, primarily the youth, who took to the streets in mass protests, led to the lifting of the informal moratorium on criticism of the Ukrainian government by European partners.
The EU has finally begun to articulate what it had previously only hinted at, and not always clearly: either you truly reform, or you will inevitably face problems, both with European integration and funding.
This was followed by a wave of good news, the first of which was the restoration of the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO).
There are also positive signals regarding the appointment of the head of the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine (ESBU) – it appears the government will soon appoint Oleksandr Tsyvinskyi, the winner of the competition conducted by a commission with independent experts.
But Brussels makes it clear: "This is not the end of the process."
After NABU and SAPO: four key demands from the European Commission
The EU expects Ukraine to continue its reforms. EU leaders publicly emphasise that two areas are critical: the rule of law and the fight against corruption.
Whether these expectations will be met depends primarily on the political will of the President’s Office. If that will exists, it’s possible to secure even 331 votes, as we saw on Thursday when the independence of NABU and SAPO was restored. The fact that the EU named the rule of law as priority #1 is a good sign, as it is indeed the foundation. But Brussels has spoken in general terms about the importance of justice before.
However, the EU’s rhetoric truly shifted last week. Now they are emphasising specifics.
European Commission spokesperson Guillaume Mercier, while welcoming Kyiv’s decision on NABU and SAPO, announced a clear list of what Ukraine is obligated to do next after restoring the independence of anti-corruption institutions:
- Return international experts to the HQCJ Selection Commission with the right of a casting vote.
- Finally appoint the four Constitutional Court judges selected by the Advisory Group of Experts with international participation.
- Reject "toxic" amendments to the Criminal Code.
- Adopt a law on administrative justice, particularly, establish the specialised administrative courts to review actions of the president, cabinet, and other government bodies.
A test of sincerity on the EU path
These requirements are not new – these areas have long been priorities for the EU. Recall that reforming the CCU and HQCJ were the first two of the seven conditions Ukraine received along with its candidate status, and which it committed to fulfilling to open accession negotiations.
In 2023, Ukraine fulfilled both to the extent required by the EU at that time.
Now Kyiv has the chance to demonstrate that the path toward the EU is irreversible.
And to show that we understand the importance of these reforms for a European Ukraine. Especially since part of the priorities announced by the EC spokesperson are already prepared for implementation.
Solving these issues requires no time or special effort – only political will from the president and parliament.
1. Draft Law No. 13382, which restores the mandate of international experts, has been registered and is awaiting review in the Rada.
This draft law has been in parliament for two months. Without its adoption, the HQCJ Selection Commission will include representatives of unreformed institutions led by allies of former Yanukovych-era officials. They are already attempting to fast-track this process to gain control over judicial appointments across the country.
2.The High Council of Justice (HCJ) can already appoint one of the two candidates selected by the commission with independent experts to the vacant HQCJ seat.
If this does not happen, it will be the second time the HCJ has ignored the commission’s recommendation – an outright sabotage of reform efforts and achievements.
3. Four candidates for Constitutional Court judge positions, selected through a transparent competition, have been awaiting appointment by parliament and the president for nearly six months.
They were selected by the Advisory Group of Experts, which includes international members. Any further delay in appointments puts all critical Constitutional Court decisions at risk.
Currently, the Court has only 12 sitting judges – the minimum quorum. If one falls ill or is absent, the Court cannot convene. Even if it does, 10 of the 12 must vote to adopt a decision.
This effectively makes the Court dysfunctional – even if it convenes, it is unlikely to be able to issue any rulings.
Does this mean that solving these issues will guarantee Ukraine a green light to the EU?
Not yet, but these steps will clearly demonstrate that the Ukrainian government is honouring its earlier commitments. And they will confirm that the government understands the EU’s core value: the rule of law.
It is precisely these steps, implemented sincerely and fully, that will give the president grounds to demand a reciprocal move from the EU: the actual opening of accession talks.
Especially since the EU is already working on a mechanism to enable this.
The attack on NABU and SAPO paused that process. However, there is now a chance to resume it.
The Supreme Court is next
Still, it must be understood that Ukraine has many more reforms to undertake on the road to membership. Reforming the rule of law system goes far beyond the four points listed by the EC spokesperson.
Opening accession talks should serve as a stimulus for continued reforms. The next step must be the renewal of the Supreme Court. This is a key element of Ukraine’s European integration and the foundation of the rule of law.
The European Commission has repeatedly emphasised the need to reform the SC and address corruption in the highest judicial body.
The Supreme Court has already undergone one reform attempt, but it failed due to a lack of political will from the administration at the time and resistance from within the judiciary itself.
The failure of that attempt is clearly reflected in recent news:
- Supreme Court ex-Chief Justice Knyazev was caught accepting a bribe of nearly $3 million. According to the investigation, 13 other judges are involved, most of whom remain in office.
- At least two senior Supreme Court judges were found to hold Russian passports.
- The Supreme Court continues to undermine judicial reform, issuing rulings on dismissals and qualification assessments that shield low-integrity judges. For more details, see: The Supreme Court in the shadows of scandal: corruption, sabotage of reform, and Russian ties.
- Around 51% of current Supreme Court judges are considered low-integrity or have public complaints filed against them.
- 69% of Ukrainian citizens do not trust the Supreme Court.
The discussion on details lies ahead, but there is no way to simulate reform here.
Current attempts by parliament to pass off imitation as genuine cleansing of the highest judicial institution have already triggered criticism from the European Commission’s relevant directorate (DG ENEST).
In the EU’s letter of recommendations on further judicial reform, published by European Pravda, it is clearly stated that judge vetting must be conducted by the Public Council of International Experts or another body that includes international experts.
Such vetting must cover the judge’s entire professional history, and any false declarations must be considered a serious disciplinary offence.
* * * * *
The past few days have shown that, with political will, it is entirely possible to pass high-quality laws aimed at strengthening institutional independence.
It is especially important now to show both the public and European partners that the country is committed to positive change, not just in isolated cases, but systemically.
After all, decent, uncorrupt courts are desperately needed by Ukraine itself.
Mykhailo Zhernakov, Executive Director of DEJURE Foundation
Olha Komarova, Communications Manager of DEJURE Foundation