How judicial reform is slowing Ukraine's path to EU and how to fix it
European Pravda has reported that Ukraine is expecting a critical European Commission report. The document will be released very soon. The official event is set to take place in Brussels on 4 November.
The general outline of the report is, however, already known, particularly regarding two key chapters (23 and 24) from the first, Fundamentals cluster of the EU accession talks. A shadow report by a coalition of Ukrainian civil society organisations, which serves as one of the sources for the Commission’s conclusions, has been published.
At the heart of the current problems lies the judiciary.
Read more about the state of judicial reform based on the section of the shadow report prepared by the Laboratory of Legislative Initiatives in the article by Sergiy Sydorenko, European Pravda’s editoer: Judicial rollback? Which reform area ranked worst in the shadow report on Ukraine’s EU progress.
"The period from September 2024 to July 2025 was marked by a certain slowdown in judicial reform," begins the section of the report prepared by the Laboratory of Legislative Initiatives.
Thus, reform implementation has lost momentum, though it has not come to a halt.
The report notes that some progress has been made during the year, and several EU recommendations have been implemented.
Yet the negative trends are far more serious.
At the top of the problem list is the "pressure exerted by law enforcement bodies, particularly the State Bureau of Investigation, on the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine." This is a serious accusation and the issue has reached such proportions that it now appears in the annual report for the EU. That means Brussels will certainly take note.
And this is not the only problem described as a priority concern.
The shadow report also lists: "the failure of the competition for positions at the High Anti-Corruption Court, delays in establishing higher administrative courts, and new large-scale corruption schemes in certain courts." These examples leave little doubt that the past year in judicial reform has been one of regression, not progress.
From a systemic perspective, judicial reform requires a strategic vision of how it should unfold. According to the EU, Ukraine currently lacks such a vision as the long-promised "Strategy for the Development of the Justice System and Constitutional Judiciary for 2025–2029," announced by the Presidential Office, has yet to be adopted.
Even more concerning are attempts to reverse parts of the reform process.
"During the reporting period, attention should also be paid to attempts to roll back certain elements of judicial reform," notes the report by the Laboratory of Legislative Initiatives. Moreover, this refers not to a single instance, but to a series of such attempts.
The authors cite examples such as the registration in parliament of a bill on judicial disciplinary responsibility, the adoption of a law on new higher specialised administrative courts and repeated delays in implementing key measures – the missing judicial strategy being just one of many.
Overall, the current state of EU-related judicial reforms offers little reason for optimism regarding the upcoming official European Commission report.
To be fair, the government deserves credit for acknowledging and engaging with the shadow report, even though it was clear from the outset that the document would be critical of its actions.
Despite this, the presentation was attended by senior officials from key bodies responsible for judicial reform.
"This demonstrates both the maturity of civil society and the maturity of the government, which is willing to listen. We share a common goal – Ukraine’s accession to the EU," said Iryna Mudra, Deputy Head of the Presidential Office of Ukraine, who attended the presentation of the shadow report.