Why the EU accession rule of law roadmap has drawn criticism

Ukraine stands on the verge of a historic decision to begin real negotiations on EU accession.

The Cabinet of Ministers has taken the required next step and approved three roadmaps – on the rule of law, public administration reform, and the functioning of democratic institutions. 

However, a detailed analysis of the rule of law roadmap sometimes raises more questions than it provides answers. The new roadmap from the Cabinet appears to be an attempt to divert attention and resources to numerous secondary tasks, thereby avoiding the painful but necessary systemic changes.

Read more about key concerns in the article by the Anti-Corruption Action Center and the DEJURE Foundation: 529 priorities instead of reforms: how the rule of law roadmap replaced real change.

At first glance, the document developed by the Cabinet is impressive in scope, as it outlines 124 strategic outcomes and 529 key actions.

The experience of previous years shows that real changes in the judiciary and law enforcement agencies occurred not because of hundreds of minor technical steps, but due to a few key, deep reforms.

For example, the reforms that created the anti-corruption infrastructure. Recall how the establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO) and the High Anti-Corruption Court with the involvement of international experts in selection commissions fundamentally changed the fight against corruption in Ukraine.

Another example is the reform of the courts. The reboot of the High Council of Justice and the High Qualification Commission of Judges with the decisive role of international experts made it possible to begin the real cleansing of the judiciary.

These targeted but deep reforms created institutions that, for the first time in Ukraine’s history, began to hold previously untouchable high-ranking officials and corrupt judges accountable.

The most significant concern is that the document effectively ignores the key problem of Ukraine’s justice system – its deep politicisation.

The roadmap completely avoids the issue of international experts and the expiration of their tenures, as if this critical problem does not exist. The document is silent about the fact that the terms of international experts in key selection commissions, including the one that appoints HQCJ members, are about to expire.

The participation of international experts must continue until concrete rule of law benchmarks are achieved, or at least until 2030. International experts are not a sign of a weak Ukrainian state but a guarantee of irreversible change – a safeguard against political revenge and corruption rollback.

The issue of Supreme Court reform deserves special attention. The roadmap contains only vague language, with no specific mechanisms or timelines. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court remains the last bastion of the old system, retaining the influence of judges with questionable reputations and ties to political and oligarchic groups.

The solution is a thorough integrity check of current Supreme Court judges and the introduction of a new selection procedure with the involvement of international experts.

Another telling example of the roadmap’s lack of strategic vision is its approach to prosecution reform.

The measures proposed by the government completely ignore the issue of appointing and dismissing the Prosecutor General. The history of Ukrainian Prosecutors General is a history of political appointments and dismissals, where a change in power automatically meant a change in the leadership of the prosecutor’s office.

Ukrainians are not waiting for 529 minor steps and glossy reports – they are waiting for ambitious changes that will significantly improve the quality of justice and provide confidence that the law works equally for everyone, regardless of position, connections, or political affiliation.