What judicial reform demands the European Commission has set for the Ukrainian government
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.
Read more in the article by the DEJURE Foundation: Frozen Eurointegration, thawed stagnation: how Ukraine’s justice system has changed over the past year.
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).
The European Commission notes reports of interference by the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI), which may undermine the independence of the HQCJ.
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.
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.
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.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, the institution that was supposed to be the flagship of renewed justice has turned into the main advocate of the old judicial caste.
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.
The Constitutional Court’s functionality remains severely limited.
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.
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.