“On July 7, the National Association of Bar of Ukraine (NAAU) hosted a round table on “Problematic issues of formation of the competition commission for the selection of members of the CCCS: calls or blocking?” One of the main speakers was Alexei Shevchuk: lawyer, NAAU speaker and chairman of the Information Policy and Media Committee. During his speech, the expert raised enough”, – WRITE ON: ua.news
On July 7, the National Association of Bar of Ukraine (NAAU) hosted a round table on “Problematic issues of formation of the competition commission for the selection of members of the CCCS: calls or blocking?” One of the main speakers was Alexei Shevchuk: lawyer, NAAU speaker and chairman of the Information Policy and Media Committee.
During his speech, the expert raised a rather sensitive topic – and who, in fact, are these commissions? In this case, the ethical council, which Shevchuk was forced to go through.
Further – Alexei Shevchuk’s direct language: about their own interview experience, incompetence of international experts and how grant organizations and international experts influence the selection of candidates for the GRP and the SCSU.
About interview in an ethical council
I was undergoing this procedure twice – within the framework of the competition for the post of a member of the High Council of Justice at the President’s quota. After I was checked by all the relevant bodies – NAPC, NABU, other law enforcement agencies within the special check – the next stage has come: preparation for the interview in the Ethical Council. It was a rather strange preparation. The Ethical Council Secretariat has sent me requests three times, including providing confidential information. But the impression was that privacy was not at all. The data was transmitted without any protection, without any guarantees – just as it is. The questions themselves looked extremely chaotic. For example: “We read in the media that you were relevant to a certain organization – comment.” Or: “We have found information about your diploma – explain.” And all this without any specifics or confirmed facts. It seems that the source of information was just fake news. And the worst part, at that time, there was no regulation at all that would normalize the procedure for preparation and processing of requests. Now she may have improved a little, but at that time it was a candid improvisation on the verge of absurdity.
About impressions of interview with international experts
I very clearly saw that international experts just read ready -made questions. I have no doubt that they received a pre -prepared document with the abstracts, which they just needed to voice. The questions were too similar to those that the Secretariat sent. For example, “Did you write this post?”, “Is this your Facebook post?” And here the logical question arises: did Sir Anthony Khuper, ex judge from the United Kingdom, personally analyzed my social network page in Ukrainian? It’s unlikely. It is much more likely that one of the Ukrainian secretariat workers simply gave him the necessary “vision” – and he read it.
About the lack of dialogue with members of the Council
There was no dialogue. It was a completely one -sided consideration. They asked – I answered. I was the only candidate who was interviewed in English – by the way, there is on the website of the High Council of Justice, so anyone can see the truth of my words. But even the fact that I spoke with them their language did not make the dialogue more open. The behavior of international experts was quite superficial, I would even say – a snobbery. They put themselves on the step above the candidate. And the questions they asked had a clear indictment. It was not a conversation, it was a cold interrogation without context and without respect for the legal specifics of the country to which they came to make an honest and impartial selection.
About the ignorance of international experts with the specifics of Ukrainian law
International experts are absolutely not guided by Ukrainian legislation. They operate in general ideas about European judicial procedures, but do not understand key concepts, such as a lawyer’s secret or the specificity of a judge’s oath under Ukrainian law. During the hearing, I heard how they appealed to things that simply do not apply in our procedural context. Their incompetence in this area eventually leads to false decisions.
The opinion of experts forms not their own analysis, but the documents they receive from the secretariat. And the secretariat, in turn, is representatives of grant structures. Each ethical council has its own secretariat. But the question: who and how does it form it? When you begin to understand, it turns out that they are representatives of organizations such as Dejure, the center of counteraction to corruption and them. Often, these are little -known, low -competent structures with expert experience in one and a half years after the university. These people prepare conclusions, analyze the dossier, form a “narrative”. Their role is huge. And experts simply legalize the prepared decisions. When an expert from Lithuania, Britain or Estonia does not even know the basic context, but makes a decision on the basis of tips, it is not involved, it is a scenery. True international expertise was replaced with an internal scenario with an external sign.
About the legitimacy of competitions and destruction of trust
It destroys trust completely. First, there is no transparency: there are no Secretariat regulations, documents are transmitted through private mail-gmail, Ukr.net. Secondly, all these competitions look only as a formality. In fact, “needed” candidates are already defined, and the interview is only part of the game. It is not classic political or, so to speak, ideological censorship. This is a frank segregation, otherwise it is difficult to name. If you are from the Casts of grant organizations, you pass. If not – you will not be allowed. But the paradox is that even among the “one’s” deficiency, because the reputation of these structures is toxic, and fewer people are ready to be associated with them.
Can international experts remain participants in the process
Of course they can. But only if they work independently. They need to analyze their dossier independently, to form requests, to make decisions. Without mediation. Otherwise it is simply legalization of extraneous influences. The irony is that these processes lack transparency. Although for the sake of it all these selection mechanisms were introduced. Required open competitions, online broadcasting, ratings-in points with a clear justification. No secretariats staffed. Undoubtedly, foreigners can participate, but only as independent experts, not as a screen for the domestic forehead.
Is there analogies between the Ethical Council and the selection in the CCCS
Complete analogy. For example, the competition for the SCCS did not even have a dossier selection regulation. It speaks for yourself. The same template. It is quite simple: opaque pre -filtration through a controlled secretariat, then an interview with a predetermined scenario, then a ready -made decision. Outside – a competition. And in fact, the names of the names. We need to be clearly aware of we will not get a single reform until we remove the sidelines of HPV We will not provide true transparency. This applies to both the Ethical Council, the CCCS, and the entire selection system. Because now is an imitation. Moreover, it is dangerous because it kills confidence in the judicial branch.