“Authors: Yaroslav Kuzyshyn, advocacy manager of the DEJURE Foundation Maria Glushko, communicator of the DEJURE Foundation At the end of the year, the Supreme Council of Justice (SCJ) decided to jeopardize the judicial reform: unscrupulous judges will have a chance to remain in office despite the dark spots in their biographies.”, — write: www.pravda.com.ua
Authors:
Yaroslav Kuzyshyn, advocacy manager of the DEJURE Foundation
Maria Hlushko, communications officer of the DEJURE Foundation
At the end of the year, the Supreme Council of Justice (SCJ) decided to jeopardize judicial reform: unscrupulous judges will have a chance to remain in office despite dark spots in their biographies.
In December 2023, thanks to the head of the Legal Policy Committee, Denis Maslov, to the Law of Ukraine “On the High Council of Justice” were changes made. According to them, the Uniform indicators for assessing the integrity and professional ethics of judges/judge candidates are approved by the VRP after consultations with the Higher Qualifications Commission of Judges, the Public Integrity Council, international experts and… odious Council of judges.
Previously, the DEJURE Foundation already wrote that the norm looks very illogical, since the evaluation of the integrity and professionalism of judges is mostly within the competence of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HCQC) and the Public Integrity Council (GRD), which have already agreed on common indicators. Despite this, after long discussions, the working group still worked out a sensible project, which contains clear and effective mechanisms for checking integrity.
So, from now on, the VRP, VKKS and GRD will determine an honest judge or a candidate for the position of judge according to certain rules and criteria, which are going to be voted on tomorrow, December 17. They started considering this issue last week, without first presenting the work of the working group to the public. at most The GRP included in the latest version of the Unified Indicators provisions that will negatively affect the evaluation and can significantly set back the progress that has been achieved.
We explain where the VRP went wrong and what to do about it.
Perpetual virtueA harmful provision appeared in the project, according to which the integrity of a judge or a candidate for a judge can be established once for all. That is, if one of the competition commissions recognizes a person as virtuous, then another body will be prohibited from checking it again, even if questionable candidates were passed through the competition, as was the case with the Ethics Council, which also selected current members of the VRP.
It is interesting that VRP member Inna Plakhtiy, who had a clear conflict of interest, voted for this decision: she is participating in the competition for appeals courts, and her integrity was previously confirmed by the Ethics Council (still at the stage of the competition before the VRP). So, if this provision of the Unified Indicators is voted on, the Higher Qualifications Commission of Judges will no longer be able to verify the same information during the competition for appeals courts, neither in respect of Plakhtiy nor in respect of any other judge. This makes it possible for persons who were previously recognized as virtuous, despite many questions about their biographies, to retain their positions, for example, during competitions for the VRP, VKKS, etc.
Some members of the VRP also suggested that, according to this logic, the decisions of the commissions on the dishonesty of a person should also be considered final. However, VRP member Vitaly Salikhov strongly opposed such a proposal and actually blocked the vote on it. Therefore, due to the lack of unanimity in the Council, this proposal has been postponed until the meeting on December 17.
Optimal in this case is the proposal of the Working Group, according to which previous conclusions can be taken into account, but are not decisive for assessing the integrity of a judge or a candidate.
The inspection period is artificially limited In the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (for example, the decision in the case “Xhoxhaj v. Albania”) and Ukrainian laws, the evaluation of judges or candidates is not limited to a certain period of their life. However, VRP can narrow it down. In particular, Serhii Burlakov and Vitaly Salikhov actively advocated the idea of starting the assessment from the time of obtaining a diploma or starting professional activity as a lawyer. The final vote was also postponed until December 17.
This will hinder the whole process, in particular during the inspection of the property, which usually accumulates over decades. For example, as in the case of judge Inna Otrosh Jr., she could not explain the origin of the expensive real estate that she acquired before being appointed to the position. This became one of the reasons for her dismissal in October 2024. This would not have happened if such a provision had been adopted earlier.
Indicators of integrity should not artificially limit the assessment of integrity to a certain stage of life. For example, if a person supported Russia’s armed aggression or the occupation of our territories, what difference did it make if he had a law degree or not? The body responsible for verification should have the right to evaluate such actions, and not throw up their hands: “He wasn’t a lawyer then.”
Property registered to relatives does not matterOn December 17, the Supreme Administrative Court will also consider the question of which of the relatives of a judge or a candidate for a judge can be inspected. According to the GRD, the final draft of the Unified Indicators contains provisions that “forget” to take into account the wealth of both close family members and the family (sister’s husband, for example). Registration or census of valuable property specifically for the “close circle” is a common practice of corrupt people. The lack of vetting of family members effectively gives the green light to the old scheme. This will reduce the quality of the evaluation itself, and also contradicts the law, which provides for the inclusion of this information in the file for verification.
The adoption of the Uniform Indicators with these proposals is a significant step back in cleaning the judicial system of unscrupulous judges or judicial candidates, and therefore a direct threat to the reform. At the same time, in this way, the Council will tie its hands, as well as the VKKS and GRD in the further evaluation and verification of the servants of Themis or those who are to become them.
At most, the VRP managed to nullify almost a year of efforts of the working group, which included, in particular, representatives of the public and international experts. The fact that their opinion is not taken into account again will show that the format of working groups is just a beautiful facade for foreign partners.
The public expects that the members of the VRP will still remove these harmful provisions from the project. After all, they endanger all efforts aimed at cleaning the judicial corps, and therefore judicial reform, the implementation of which is one of the main requirements of our European integration. And responsible for this failure will be every member of the VRP who will support the threatening norms of the Unified Integrity Indicators.