Frozen Eurointegration, thawed stagnation: how Ukraine’s justice system has changed over the past year

Yesterday, the European Commission presented its latest annual assessment of Ukraine’s progress – the so-called "Enlargement Package" report on the EU-related reforms of candidate countries.

Despite the overall restrained criticism (the text leaked by Reuters earlier that day suggested a tougher conclusion), this year the European Commission delivered rather clear and unambiguous signals to the Ukrainian government regarding rule-of-law reforms.

In particular, the Commission finally ended the debate over whether selection commissions with international experts are needed.

The answer: they are, and their mandates must be immediately extended. In addition, it is necessary to urgently complete the selection of judges of the Constitutional Court and reboot the Supreme Court with the participation of the already-mentioned independent experts.

This is also stated in our independent civil society Shadow Report prepared by DEJURE Foundation, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre, AutoMaidan, the MEZHA Anti-Corruption Centre, the Institute of Mass Information, the Media Initiative for Human Rights and expert Andrii Mikheiev. Below are the key points from the reports.

Pressure on cleansing institutions: HQCJ, PIC, and international experts

One of the main challenges in judicial reform is the pressure exerted on institutions that serve as fundamental instruments for cleansing the judiciary, namely the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) and the Public Integrity Council (PIC).

In March, the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) opened several criminal cases against HQCJ members, and with the approval of Pechersk Court judges, conducted searches and interrogations. This occurred just as the HQCJ approached interviews with a judge from that same Pechersk Court.

The result was a chilling effect:

some HQCJ members now weigh the risk of criminal pressure from the SBI.

Such pressure from the unreformed Bureau, which may constitute an encroachment on HQCJ’s independence, is also noted by the European Commission.

Meanwhile, the parliamentary commission of Vlasenko–Buzhansky continues to act – after its failed blitzkrieg against NABU and SAPO – under the guise of "oversight," waging a systematic campaign to discredit the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), HQCJ, and PIC.

Its hearings turn into political shows filled with interrogations and slogans. It seems the sole purpose of this commission is to undermine judicial and anti-corruption reforms. 

Another challenge is preserving the role of independent experts nominated by international partners.

In June, the mandate of the international experts who participated in the selection of HQCJ members within the Selection Commission expired. Despite the obvious success of this model, which acts as a safeguard against judicial clan influence, MPs have been in no hurry to consider draft law No. 13382 on reinstating independent international experts.

The current law envisions that instead of international experts, unreformed Ukrainian institutions would take part in selecting HQCJ members – potentially undoing positive changes. The European Commission emphasised the inadmissibility of such a scenario, demanding to "urgently extend the temporary involvement of internationally-nominated independent experts in the selection of members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ)".

It also stated that "Growing resistance to the involvement of internationally nominated independent experts in various selection or vetting processes … raises serious concern." As for the Council of Judges, headed by Bohdan Monich, and the Bar Council led by Lidiia Izovitova, both involved in HQCJ member selection, the Commission also noted the need to initiate their reform.

Supreme Court: the centre of gravity of the old system

The institution that was supposed to be the flagship of renewed justice has turned into the main advocate of the old judicial caste.

The Supreme Court continues issuing rulings that undermine the very idea of judicial reform, using its influence to set precedents that dismantle judicial disciplinary accountability, obstruct integrity checks, and effectively legalise the return of "old cadres."

Earlier, the European Commission emphasised that the Supreme Court has not revised its position regarding the controversial decision in judge Usatyi’s case, which jeopardised the assessment of nearly 180 low-integrity judges.

Meanwhile, despite evident problems within the Supreme Court, including corruption scandals, MPs simply excluded it from the list of bodies subject to verification in the draft law on judicial integrity declarations.

It is now evident that

without a deep reboot, this institution will remain the primary barrier to cleansing judicial power.

The reboot must begin with reviewing the integrity declarations of current Supreme Court judges and conducting new competitions for vacant posts.

Both stages should take place with "temporary but meaningful involvement of independent experts nominated by international partners," as explicitly recommended by the European Commission in its new report.

Constitutional Court: quorum present, capacity in question

The Constitutional Court, which in 2020 effectively destroyed the electronic asset declaration, was meant to become an institution where a new, transparent selection mechanism with international experts (Advisory Group of Experts) would finally function. In practice, however, the process again became a matter of political bargaining.

Although four judges – Serhii Riznyk, Alla Oliynyk, Oleksandr Vodiannykov, and Yurii Barabash – have already been appointed under the new selection procedure, thus formally restoring the quorum, the Court’s functionality remains severely limited.

The Grand Chamber of the Constitutional Court requires at least ten of thirteen sitting judges to make decisions, while a quorum is twelve judges, meaning that the absence of just two judges due to illness or leave once again paralyses the Court’s work.

President still has not filled all vacancies under his quota, and a few weeks ago, the Verkhovna Rada failed to support any candidates, forcing the competition to restart from scratch. 

The European Commission responded that appointing bodies "fill the remaining vacancies in the Constitutional Court without further delays." Therefore, appointing judges and ensuring the stable operation of the Court become key tests of the state’s ability to fulfil its own commitments – primarily the reform of the Constitutional Court, which was the first of the seven requirements at the stage of obtaining EU candidate status.

Selection and cleansing of the judiciary: missed deadlines

The renewed mechanism of judicial integrity declarations with international expert participation was supposed to become a key tool for cleansing the judiciary. In particular, it is one of the "benchmarks" for EU financial support under the Ukraine Facility program.

However, in June this year, the deadline for introducing integrity declarations expired.

Because Ukraine failed to meet this and other obligations, the EU disbursed €650 million less (!) in aid.

Consultations between the Ukrainian side and the EU are ongoing, but there is still no clarity as to who will review the declarations, under which criteria, and what consequences this will have for judges.

Besides integrity declarations, other key tools for judicial renewal are qualification assessments and competitions for judicial vacancies. Progress in selecting new judges is critical, as Ukraine still has more than 2,200 vacant judicial positions. In addition, a large share of sitting judges have yet to confirm their competence and integrity.

The European Commission also emphasises the need to accelerate both processes.

Disciplinary accountability: legalising impunity

New draft laws Nos. 13137 and 13137-1, which the head of the parliamentary legal policy committee, Denys Maslov and other MPs are trying to push under the slogan of improving the disciplinary procedure, in fact, dismantle the very foundations of judicial accountability.

For instance, MPs propose to abolish the main ground for dismissing judges ("conduct that discredits the title of judge or undermines the authority of justice"), remove liability for failure to submit or falsifying asset declarations, and block complaints against low-integrity judges ,

effectively making dismissal impossible.

Even the Venice Commission, despite its diplomatic restraint, acknowledged that these amendments are dangerous – though it did not insist on their withdrawal. As a result, we now have a formula of "reverse reform": a disciplinary draft law that abolishes discipline.

In addition, the High Council of Justice (HCJ) has still not reviewed more than half of HQCJ’s submissions on judge dismissals, while the consideration of priority cases – particularly those involving judges of the notorious District Administrative Court of Kyiv – is constantly delayed.

The efficiency rate speaks for itself: over the past year, the HCJ dismissed only ten judges following qualification assessments, as also noted by the European Commission.

The Commission emphasised: "The HCJ needs to expedite the review of submissions from the HQCJ on the dismissal of judges who failed the evaluation of qualifications and improve the reasoning of its decisions." It further stated that "The HCJ rules on the prioritisation of disciplinary cases should be systematically applied, and priority cases handled without delays."

Other EC recommendations for the HCJ include ensuring that HCJ members who are judges do not review complaints against their peers, preventing judges from avoiding dismissal by resigning, and removing barriers to appeal disciplinary chamber decisions by complainants – all of which civil society had previously mentioned.

The bar and legal education: stable nothing

Despite clear EU requirements for reforming the bar and legal education, there has been no substantial movement in either area.

MPs are stalling the draft law on higher legal education and initial access to the legal profession. The European Commission emphasised the need for its adoption. Such a law should include:

• institutional separation of legal education and law-enforcement training;
• allocation of state funds based on merit;
• stricter entry and licensing standards for law schools;
• integrity requirements in legal education.

According to the government-approved Roadmap, this law should be adopted by the end of Q1 2026. It is already drafted, of good quality, and… collecting dust in the parliamentary committee. Likewise, there is zero progress on Bar reform – prompting the European Commission to urge:

"Ukraine needs to urgently launch a comprehensive reform of the Bar, with the aim to ensure that the bodies of the UNBA are created on the basis of a transparent and credible procedure and to substantially improve qualifications, admissions, disciplinary liability, financial management and continuous training systems."

* * * * *

Thus, the vast majority of the European Commission’s assessments and recommendations coincide with those described by civil society in the Shadow Report.

Given the fundamental nature of the judicial reform, it is now essential not to lose positive achievements and to accelerate the relaunch of the judicial system – by preserving the independence and strengthening the efficiency of the HQCJ, thoroughly cleansing the Supreme Court, and ensuring the full operation of the Constitutional Court.

Ukraine now finds itself in a situation where the pause in our European integration caused by Hungary’s veto is being used not for preparing the next reform stage but for attempts to dismantle previous achievements, with the pressure on the HQCJ or the undermining of NABU’s independence serving as sad examples.

For our European integration to become not only a goal but also an instrument of real change, we must continue implementing reforms and demonstrate progress to both friends and sceptics within the EU.

Despite the European Commission’s technical assessments, EU member states will also evaluate Ukraine’s steps in key areas.

Considering the political nature of such decisions, we must demonstrate our profound commitment to the rule of law reform.

If pressure on anti-corruption institutions continues and judges with toxic reputations remain protected by the system, we will fail to convince European partners – and even more so the citizens of EU countries – that European integration is driven not only by Ukrainians’ enormous public demand but also by genuine political will at the highest level.

Because moving toward the EU is not so much about embodying European values "in spirit," as it is about the effectiveness of institutions – and the readiness to ensure that effectiveness in practice.

DEJURE Foundation