High Council of Justice: The Vlasenko–Buzhansky Temporary Commission has exceeded its powers and poses a threat to judicial independence

The High Council of Justice (HCJ) has publicly stated that the Vlasenko–Buzhansky Temporary Investigation Commission (TIC) is exerting pressure on the judiciary. At its meeting on December 2, the HCJ adopted an important decision — to address the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine with a notice that the actions of the Temporary Investigation Commission have harmed the authority of justice and violated the guarantees of independence of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ).

The High Council of Justice also called on the Vlasenko–Buzhansky TIC to adhere to the principles of activity established by law and to act within the tasks defined by the Verkhovna Rada’s resolution establishing this commission.

In its decision, the HCJ described the actions of Vlasenko and his colleagues, who accused the HQCJ of “irresponsibility in decision-making” and labelled the selection of judicial candidates as “manually controlled.” The HCJ cited statements by MP Mamka, including: “There will be questions to the HCJ — other questions,” and similar remarks. According to the HCJ, the Vlasenko–Buzhansky TIC “once again, without properly verified facts, asserts the existence of numerous violations in the actions of HQCJ members during the competition.”

The HCJ also submitted an information request to the TIC, but received a formal reply stating that the TIC “is not a state authority, a local self-government body, or a legal entity, and therefore there are no legal grounds for the TIC to provide information in response to requests from the High Council of Justice.”

Just a few weeks earlier, the TIC’s “expert group” stated in its conclusion that the Public Integrity Council is not a legal entity and therefore allegedly operates outside the legal framework, creating corruption risks. Now it turns out that the Vlasenko–Buzhansky TIC itself claims to operate outside the legal framework and is not obliged to respond to requests from state bodies.

Separately, the HCJ drew attention to the fact that the TIC groundlessly began demanding from the HQCJ all documentation for the past five years regarding financial and technical assistance provided by international partners (donors). It also noted that the TIC unlawfully attempted to apply compulsory appearance to HQCJ member Serhii Chumak, who is a judge.

Conclusions from the decision of the High Council of Justice:

• the demonstrative and groundless use of investigative measures against HQCJ members undermines the authority of justice as a whole and damages the reputation of the judicial system;

• the TIC has gone beyond its powers in collecting, analysing, and verifying information;

• the actions of the TIC show signs of violating constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches;

• the TIC has effectively assumed the functions of a law enforcement body and a court, in breach of the limitations established by the law on temporary investigation commissions;

• attempts by the TIC to assume the evaluation of the “professional competence” of candidates and to publicly question HQCJ decisions are incompatible with the principle of judicial independence;

• circumstances in which the TIC, having violated the statutory deadline for invitations to meetings, demonstratively applied compulsory appearance to an HQCJ member who is a judge with immunity due to his status are unacceptable;

• the substance of certain questions posed by TIC members to HQCJ members, and especially their form, indicates bias on the part of TIC members toward the activities of the HQCJ;

• the dismissive nature of certain publicly stated remarks, questions, and comments by TIC members harms the authority of judicial governance bodies and the judiciary as a whole;

• the activities of the TIC constitute not only a public discrediting of the HQCJ but also create a threat to judicial independence;

• there are doubts regarding the objectivity and impartiality of members of the TIC’s “expert group,” who represent the interests of candidates for judicial positions who were not selected in the competition or judges whom the HQCJ recommended for dismissal;

• media publications, interviews, and public calls made during TIC meetings, in which violations by the HQCJ are presumed without facts and evidence established by authorised bodies, damage not only the reputation of HQCJ members but also discredit candidates for judicial office who were recognised as winners of competitions and sitting judges. All of this generally has a negative impact on Ukraine’s reputation in the international arena.

The TIC carried out similar actions with regard to NABU, SAPO, the High Anti-Corruption Court, the Public Integrity Council, and the Executive Director of the DEJURE Foundation, Mykhailo Zhernakov.

By December 19, the TIC must submit a written report to the Verkhovna Rada on the work carried out during six months of its activity. At an urgent session, the Verkhovna Rada will decide whether to terminate the work of the commission or instruct it to continue its work.

We call on Members of Parliament to carefully review the positions of the European Commission, the High Anti-Corruption Court, the High Council of Justice, the High Qualification Commission of Judges, and the Public Integrity Council regarding the TIC’s exceeding the tasks defined by the Verkhovna Rada’s resolution, and to adopt a decision to terminate the work of the TIC.