EU negotiations begin with “Fundamentals”: what this means for judicial reform

The EU has opened the main negotiating cluster for Ukraine — “Fundamentals.” This is where the actual assessment of the state’s readiness for membership begins. The European Union has officially approved the opening of accession negotiations with Ukraine. On June 15, 2026, consideration of the first negotiating cluster began in Luxembourg. Separate intergovernmental conferences were held for Ukraine and Moldova.

This decision deserves to be welcomed: the opening of the first negotiating cluster confirms that Ukraine is moving in the right direction on the path to EU membership. After the political start of negotiations in June 2024, Ukraine is finally moving to a new stage of European integration — the practical implementation of reforms, on which further progress toward EU membership will depend.

EU Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos called this day a “mega-day” for the enlargement process. And that is indeed true. Ukraine has done what seemed almost impossible just a few years ago: during a major war, the state has not only held on but has continued moving toward the EU.

For judicial reform, this means a new level of responsibility. Failure to fulfil obligations regarding the selection of judges, the cleansing of the judiciary, the independence of judicial governance, and quality appointments to the Constitutional Court could create problems for the negotiation process right from the start. After all, the pace of further progress will depend on the quality of reform implementation.

Member of Parliament Yaroslav Zhelezniak called the opening of the first cluster a “tectonic shift” in European integration. At the same time, he emphasised that further financial assistance and the speed of integration “are now directly tied to Ukraine’s fulfilment of this ‘homework.'”

His warning is precise: this is no longer just about the risk of losing another billion euros. The very pace of Ukraine’s accession to the EU could be at risk.

The EU is moving from a political “we support you” to a practical “show us the results.”

Why “Fundamentals” is the main cluster

EU accession negotiations are divided into six clusters. The first to be opened is “Fundamentals of the Accession Process.” It will also be the last to be closed.

This cluster includes: democracy, the rule of law, the fight against corruption, public procurement, financial control, justice, and freedom and security.

Reforms carried out in these areas will answer the basic question of the negotiations: Is Ukraine a law-governed state that can be trusted as a partner?

Put simply, the EU first looks at whether the country has rules that work for everyone. Whether the courts are independent. Whether judges are of high integrity. Whether there is accountability for those who abuse power. Whether anti-corruption bodies function. Whether the state is capable of cleansing itself.

Without this, all other reforms will not produce the desired result. The best laws on economics, investment, business, taxes, or the protection of rights can be adopted. But if the courts are unable to protect a person or a business, these rules will not have real force.

For DEJURE, the key element of this cluster is Chapter 23, “Judiciary and Fundamental Rights.” In it, the EU assesses the independence of courts, the integrity of judges, the quality of justice, and the protection of the judicial system from influence.

The European Commission directly emphasises that building an independent and effective judicial system is of primary importance. The pace of negotiations will depend on its quality.

Even if Ukraine makes progress in the other five clusters, failure to meet obligations within “Fundamentals” will block progress toward membership. For judicial reform, this means it is no longer a separate internal process but becomes part of the main negotiating track.

529 reforms, but there are priorities

The rule-of-law roadmap contains 529 reforms. But for negotiations with the EU, the reforms from the Kachka-Kos plan will be of key importance. These are the ones that show the EU whether Ukraine is ready to strengthen the rule of law, protect the independence of institutions, and carry out judicial reform in a substantive way.

A coalition of civil society organisations, including the DEJURE Foundation, has already assessed the implementation of this plan for the first three months of 2026 at 9 points out of 100. The UAEUmeter project shows a similar picture. According to its assessment, in the first quarter of 2026, the rule-of-law subindex fell to 0.04 points. Experts saw no substantial progress on any of the 10 points of priority reforms from the joint statement by Marta Kos and Taras Kachka.

This is an alarming indicator for a country that is opening the “Fundamentals” cluster.

A new assessment from the coalition of civil society organizations, including the DEJURE Foundation, covering six months of the plan’s implementation is still ahead. But it is already clear: progress is extremely slow. There are individual decisions, draft laws, and statements, but a breakthrough cannot yet be claimed.

The greatest lag is currently visible precisely in the judicial block of the Kachka-Kos plan. Three priority reforms, which the EU identified as indicators of real progress, are still either being implemented with delays or remain only at the level of legislative intentions.

• Appointment of Constitutional Court judges and members of the High Council of Justice. The EU expects the timely filling of vacancies at the Constitutional Court and the High Council of Justice through updated selection procedures involving international experts. Currently, some positions at the Constitutional Court and the High Council of Justice remain vacant, and certain competitions are being delayed. To fulfill these obligations, the selection process must be completed and delays in appointments must be avoided.
• International experts in the selection of members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges. The EU requires the return of international experts to the Selection Commission for selecting members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges, with a decisive vote in the vetting process. At the same time, the relevant draft law has not been advancing in parliament for a long time, and the government’s initiatives on this topic are still at the drafting stage and have not been made public. Without the adoption of legislative changes on this topic, there remains a risk that a new competition commission will be formed exclusively of Ukrainian experts, returning to the old system of judicial selection.
• Improvement of the system for verifying integrity declarations of judges, in particular Supreme Court judges, with independent international experts. Ukraine was supposed to strengthen the verification mechanism and involve international experts in the procedure for checking such declarations for Supreme Court judges, but this requirement was fulfilled in a rather formal manner.

Imitation has already become a problem

This concerns the verification of judges’ integrity declarations, a reform for which Ukraine was supposed to receive financial support under the Ukraine Facility program.

Draft law No. 13165-2 was meant to strengthen the vetting of judges. Instead, the adopted version left a key loophole: liability arises only for the deliberate provision of false information in a declaration. In practice, this is almost impossible to prove, since a judge can simply say they “made a mistake” or “misunderstood the question.”

Instead, a number of provisions were added that guarantee in advance that there will be no liability for false statements in declarations.

In addition, the draft law does not provide for the temporary involvement of independent international experts in checking the declarations of Supreme Court judges.

Formally, based on the name of the draft law, the Ukrainian authorities presented this obligation as fulfilled. But for successful negotiations on EU accession, a nice sign may not be enough.

Marta Kos has noted that these reforms are not meant for Brussels, but are aimed at building stronger institutions, attracting investment, strengthening the rule of law, supporting reconstruction, and improving the everyday lives of Ukrainians. Imitations of laws do not achieve this goal.

Therefore, the adoption of laws in parliament does not finally complete a reform. After that, the implementation stage begins, during which it will become clear whether Ukraine is fulfilling its obligations in substance.

DEJURE and other NGOs will monitor this process, particularly in the area of justice. We sincerely hope for prompt and high-quality progress, because that is exactly what Ukraine needs in order to build the rule of law and conduct successful negotiations with the EU.