13 months of the qualification assessment: 45% of judges found unfit by the PIC were dismissed - CC2D3
Back

13 months of the qualification assessment: 45% of judges found unfit by the PIC were dismissed

13 months of the qualification assessment: 45% of judges found unfit by the PIC were dismissed - A581E

Thirteen months have passed since the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) and the Public Integrity Council (PIC) began their joint effort to cleanse the judiciary:

  • 125 judges (55.8%) successfully passed the qualification assessment and remain in their positions.
  • 42 judges (18.8%) were recommended for dismissal by the HQCJ to the High Council of Justice (HCJ).
  • 57 judges (25.4%) faced other outcomes:

Furthermore:

  • 36 took honorable retirement,
  • 8 resigned voluntarily,
  • 4 were declared to have not acquired judicial status,
  • 3 withdrew from the qualification assessment process,
  • 2 failed to confirm their ability to administer justice.

The HQCJ’s level of support for the Public Integrity Council’s (PIC) opinions regarding judges’ non-compliance with integrity criteria has increased.

Of the 93 negative opinions issued by the PIC and fully reviewed by the HQCJ:
• In 40 cases, the HQCJ recommended the dismissal of judges.
• In 2 cases, PIC opinions were upheld during qualification assessments.
• In 51 cases, the HQCJ overturned PIC opinions.

This means the HQCJ agreed with the PIC’s findings in 45.2% of cases. However, 54.8% of judges deemed unfit by the PIC remain in office. For instance, despite indisputable evidence of misconduct outlined by the PIC, Pavlo Horbasenko, a judge from the infamous “list of 180”, managed to evade accountability.

DEJURE Foundation welcomes the HQCJ’s recently approved draft amendments to internal regulations, which aim to grant the PIC and the Public Council of International Experts (PCIE) better access to judges’ dossiers. If finalized, these changes will enable the PIC and PCIE to process information more efficiently, accelerating qualification assessment and competition procedures.

Other news
To the section
New rules bring new risks. What the draft law on the selection of HCJ members changes
New rules bring new risks. What the draft law on the selection of HCJ members changes

The government’s draft law submitted to the Venice Commission for consideration, in addition to a new procedure for forming the HQCJ, also substantially changes the procedures for electing (appointing) members of the High Council of Justice (HCJ). The proposed changes may create new risks for...

The government proposes a “broken bicycle” for international experts in the commission selecting HQCJ members
The government proposes a “broken bicycle” for international experts in the commission selecting HQCJ members

The High Qualifications Commission of Judges (HQCJ) is a body that can recommend a person for the position of judge or recommend their dismissal. That is, whoever decides your case, should you suddenly have to go to court, depends on the HQCJ’s assessment. Judges over judges, so to speak. Logi...

DACK cases and judges can end up in the same court again
DACK cases and judges can end up in the same court again

The High Qualifications Commission of Judges (HQCJ) has recommended transferring 6 judges of the liquidated DACK to the Kyiv District Administrative Court (KDAC). All the cases of the liquidated DACK had previously been transferred to the KDAC as well. In other words, the nameplate has changed, but...

Special by topic
To the section
HQCJ:Accomplishments and Problems
Judicial reform roadmap