Hijacked selection: what happens when international experts are pushed aside

This article was originally published at: zn.ua.

The latest actions of the Ukrainian authorities are forming a troubling trend: independent institutions and the mechanisms for forming them are disappearing or being devalued one after another — in particular, the participation of international experts in selection processes for key justice and anti-corruption bodies. A vivid example is the attempt to destroy the independence of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU) and the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAPO). This was preceded by the episode of the failure to appoint the winner of an internationally supervised selection process as head of the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine (ESBU). Only the public’s reaction and the position of European partners prevented the worst-case scenario. It is good that the independence of the anti-corruption bodies was restored. Yet many similar threats remain in areas that are not discussed as frequently in public.

At the same time as members of the Verkhovna Rada were voting to dismantle the anti-corruption reform, the High Council of Justice (HCJ), relying on current legislation, took a step that may deal a blow to judicial reform: it began forming a new Selection Commission for the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) — without international experts. The HCJ had been delaying this moment for some time, but eventually gave it the green light. This delayed step can certainly be called progress compared to its predecessors, but it is, of course, not what civil society would have hoped for in the best case. There is now a risk that the approximately 2,350 judges for the entire country will be selected by representatives of structures run by friends and loyalists of officials from the Yanukovych era.

The attack on commissions with independent experts began long before these events. For nearly half a year, the president and the Verkhovna Rada have not been appointing judges to four vacancies on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU). The candidates were selected by the Advisory Group of Experts (AGE), which includes international experts with a decisive vote. The CCU currently has the minimum quorum of 12 judges. If no one falls ill or goes on leave, sessions can be held, but ten votes are needed to adopt a decision. As of today, only three judges on the CCU went through an independent competition; the rest are part of Zelensky’s political team or a legacy of previous political eras. Under such circumstances, it is rather difficult to expect landmark decisions that might run counter to the will of the Presidential Office.

Despite positive signals from the government regarding the appointment of the winner of the independent selection process as head of the BES, one core challenge remains: to protect and preserve the participation of international experts in commissions. At present, this is the only instrument that makes it possible to build institutions independent of political influence — as we show through specific examples below. (To preview the conclusion: successes come where international experts were involved; failures come when things were handled “on their own.”)

Of course, every institution has its flaws, and none is perfect. Building independent institutions is a difficult path: it requires constant support and protection from attack, and systems have a tendency to degrade if left unattended — which has, unfortunately, happened to some institutions. But this does not negate the fact that institutions formed with the participation of international experts, rather than through political loyalty, have an incomparably greater chance of operating independently, making professional decisions, and protecting the public interest even in cases where this once seemed impossible.

Below, each body is examined in more detail.

The HCJ before and after: who stopped the cycle of mutual cover-up?

Without international experts:

• In 2016–2017, the High Council of Justice was formed according to the standard of “judges choosing judges.” Without independent oversight, without international experts, without critical integrity analysis of candidates. New members were selected by the congress of judges, the congress of lawyers, conferences of prosecutors and academics, the president, and the Verkhovna Rada. The result: HCJ members were “trusted” figures from the authorities, with opaque assets, politically motivated decisions, and unethical conduct.

  The outcomes of such a body’s work included unlawful appointments of judges without prior evaluation, cover-up of judges of the scandalous District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK) suspected of committing crimes, pressure on judges of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), covering-up judges implicated in Maidan cases, legitimisation of lies in asset declarations, double standards, and much else besides.

With international experts:

• The situation changed during the renewal of the HCJ in 2022–2023. This became possible thanks to international experts who joined a new body — the Ethics Council. Its task was to verify candidates’ integrity and filter out those who lacked it. Not everything went smoothly — the commission was formed of three international members and three judges, albeit with the casting vote held by the independent experts. Subsequently, from the lists submitted by the Ethics Council, the final decision was taken by the appointing entities (the same ones as in the 2016–2017 competition).

  For the first time in history, this body is not afraid to dismiss judges who lack integrity, among them the notorious head of DACK, Pavlo Vovk, whom the previous HCJ had not even managed to suspend from office. Dozens of judges have been dismissed over the past year. The work of the renewed High Council of Justice cannot be called perfect: the quality of its work depends directly on its individual members, among whom there are both progressive representatives and opponents of judicial reform. Yet compared to the previous body, it is nonetheless a significantly better version.

The HQCJ — two commissions, two realities

Without international experts:

• The commission established in 2017 ignored negative findings of the Public Integrity Council (PIC), leaving in their posts judges with serious reputational problems. Qualification assessments were conducted at the pace of a frenzied printing press and as a box-ticking exercise: only 0.5% of nearly 3,000 judges lost their positions.

The competition for the Supreme Court conducted by that Commission was a failure, as almost all key positions were filled by representatives of the old system. Because of this and a series of scandals involving attempts by DACK head Pavlo Vovk to influence the HQCJ, the Verkhovna Rada terminated the mandate of that commission in 2019. This was a logical move given that the HQCJ’s work had been effectively paralysed. The law provided for an immediate reset of the body, but it was blocked by the judicial mafia and political games. In particular, the reset was derailed by resistance from the HCJ, which set competition rules that eliminated the role of international experts, and by a CCU ruling that annulled part of a presidential law. International organisations refused to delegate their representatives, and the first attempt to renew the commission failed.

Parliament adopted a new law only in July 2021, this time incorporating the participation of international experts with a decisive vote, but the start of the full-scale war in February 2022 halted the competition once again. The selection of HQCJ members resumed only in 2023.

With international experts:

• The new commission was formed in the summer of 2023 through an open competition with the participation of international experts.

From its very first steps, the new HQCJ composition began demonstrating fundamentally different approaches from its predecessors: coordinated work with the Public Integrity Council and the approval of joint indicators for assessment judges, detailed justifications for dismissal submissions. The commission commenced a genuine assessment of judges, including conducting interviews with judges from the most scandal-ridden courts — the Pecherskyi and Shevchenkivskyi district courts and DACK. Based on qualification assessment results, the HQCJ has already recommended the dismissal of 51 judges. During the competition for appellate courts, the Commission improved its set of test tasks, thoroughly examines candidates’ dossiers during interviews, and largely agrees with PIC arguments regarding the lack of integrity of applicants.

There were, of course, problems as well: the ignoring of plagiarism in judges’ academic works or the systematic closure of drunk-driving cases on statute-of-limitations grounds; in addition, access to information for PIC members was not established until early 2025, and there were questions regarding the quality of selections for local courts, and so on. Overall, however, these are entirely different approaches from those of the previous HQCJ, along with a demonstrated capacity to work through mistakes.

SAPO — when trust emerges together with independence

Without international experts:

• In 2015, during the formation of the Specialised Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, one international expert was formally included in the commission. But she had no real influence. The winner at that time was Nazar Kholodnytskyi, who was later exposed for leaking information, pressuring judges, and pressuring witnesses. The SAPO’s reputation was in tatters.

With international experts:

• In 2021–2022, it was precisely the international experts who ensured a transparent and competitive procedure, as a result of which an independent candidate — Oleksandr Klymenko — prevailed. Under his leadership, the SAPO together with NABU carried out an operation exposing the head of the Supreme Court in a record-breaking bribe — an episode that would be difficult to imagine under the old model. Thanks to the work of the anti-corruption bodies, the High Anti-Corruption Court has already handed down hundreds of verdicts. In cases involving judges alone, by the end of 2024, the HACC had issued 40 verdicts.
• Klymenko’s appointment also met with resistance. In particular, it was delayed by a DACK ruling annulling the competition procedure and by the actions of Ukrainian members of the selection commission who, invoking the absence of security clearance and background checks, refused to vote for the winner despite his highest score and the support of the international experts.

NACP: between political control and genuine oversight

Without international experts:

• In 2015, the commission selecting the first composition of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) was fully under the control of political elites, which allowed them to filter out independent candidates at the early stages of selection. In the end, the agency was headed by individuals loyal to the authorities whose reputations raised doubts from the very first months of their work.

  The chief failure was the launch of the electronic asset declaration system. Due to managerial incapacity and political dependency, the NACP effectively torpedoed the launch of one of the key anti-corruption instruments.

With international experts:

• Following a new competition in 2019–2020, the NACP launched a full-scale review of declarations and developed a lifestyle monitoring algorithm for officials, in order to assess whether civil servants live in accordance with their declared incomes. This process demonstrated a sharp contrast with the previous version of the NACP, which had been formed without international oversight. And the results were felt not only by the professional community but by society at large.
• As for the institution’s problems, they certainly exist. A detailed breakdown was produced by ZN.UA in the piece “Results of the external audit of the NACP: a strategic failure of the institution or of Novikov?” One failure identified by journalists is the absence of a response from the previous head, Oleksandr Novikov, and his team to the results of the international audit of the Agency. Critics also note that at a certain point, the NACP stopped conducting genuine anti-corruption reviews of legislation.
• There are also questions, of course, about the silence of the new NACP head, Viktor Pavlushchyk, in the situation involving the attempt to destroy the independence of the anti-corruption bodies. Yet even so, comparing the body’s performance to the period when selection was conducted without international experts, the difference is enormous.

Bodies formed with international participation from the outset

NABU

From the body’s very first days, competitions for positions have been held with the participation of international experts. In the first competition for the director of NABU, 176 candidates took part, and 2,700 people applied for 100 detective vacancies.

In 2022–2023, a competition was held for a new NABU director that provided for the full participation of international experts.

Despite the fact that after Semen Kryvonos won the competition, representatives of the anti-corruption community and the media had doubts about the correctness of the choice — primarily on the part of the international experts — and despite a number of scandals (including leaks of information to the Presidential Office), NABU Director Kryvonos managed to preserve the reputation of the institution as one that can be trusted. In 2023–2024, NABU became the first law enforcement body in Ukraine to undergo an independent audit, which confirmed its effectiveness while pointing to shortcomings that still need to be addressed. More than 1,275 persons charged over 10 years; NABU and SAPO have ensured the transfer of more than UAH 2.5 billion for the needs of the Defence Forces. The total economic effect of NABU and SAPO’s work for 2021–2025, as the institution itself states, amounts to UAH 16.8 billion. But the economic effect includes not only restitution to the state by defendants in corruption cases, but also funds and property whose misappropriation was prevented, assets and funds transferred to the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine by court order, confiscated property, and collected bail payments. It should be noted here that NABU and SAPO are frequently criticised for low effectiveness in returning funds to the state, as well as for the absence of convictions of top officials.

The presence of political independence and safeguards against governmental influence provoked pressure unprecedented for a democratic country — the Presidential Office and parliament pushed through a law destroying this independence of the anti-corruption bodies (NABU and SAP) in under twenty-four hours. This move brought thousands of Ukrainians into the streets in protest — people who had refrained from demonstrations during the war until then. It also jeopardised the EU integration process and the receipt of financial assistance from Western partners.

The High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) — the gold standard

The High Anti-Corruption Court became a unique example of a case where the participation of international experts entirely determined its outcome.

This was the first selection with the involvement of international experts in the judicial branch: six of the six commission members were international experts. Civil society had virtually no objections to the selection of judges. There were some reservations regarding a handful of individuals — compared to other bodies, this is a remarkable phenomenon.

Thanks to the resolute stance of the international experts, all candidates with questionable reputations were screened out before the final stage. The commission was the first to operate on the principle that international experts held veto power, which ensured complete impermeability to political influence.

The court began operating in 2019 and, within a few years, handed down more than 200 verdicts, including in cases involving judges. It became an example of how a genuine judicial body should work: independently, with public trust, and with real results.

Recently, the HACC sentenced former head of the State Judicial Administration Oleksii Salnikov to three years in prison. Former judge of the Dniprovskyi district court of Kyiv, Mykola Chaus, received 10 years in prison with confiscation of property. Eleven years in prison with confiscation of property were handed down to the former judge of the Babushkinskyi district court of Dnipro, Andrii Leonov. The appellate court left the sentence unchanged.

Still pending before the HACC are cases involving the record bribe in the judicial sphere received by former Supreme Court head Kniaziev, and the alleged creation of a criminal organisation and seizure of judicial power by Pavlo Vovk, head of the now-dissolved District Administrative Court of Kyiv. Both have already lost their judicial status as a result of these exposures.

Although even in this case, there are, of course, problems and questions. For example, last week, the HACC denied SAP prosecutors’ motion to suspend from official duties the head of the Antimonopoly Committee of Ukraine, Pavlo Kyrylenko, who is currently a suspect in a NABU investigation. Moreover, society is awaiting verdicts against top-level corrupt officials not only in the judicial sphere but in the highest echelons of power as well.

Bodies that have never been exposed to the influence of independent experts

Here are several examples of how institutions function when international experts have not taken part in their selection.

The Supreme Court — without international experts, but with bribes and Russian passports

In 2016, a rather theatrical competition was launched, as a result of which a significant portion of the dishonest judges of the previous Supreme Court took up positions in the “new” court, while numerous objections and demands from civil society were ignored. The heads of each cassation court, as well as of the institution as a whole, are the former heads of the liquidated higher specialized courts. The result: judges with Russian passports, a bribe of nearly USD 3 million to Supreme Court head Kniaziev, and entirely anti-European rulings that undermine judicial reform. Currently, approximately 51% of sitting Supreme Court judges lack integrity or have been flagged by civil society. In the Kniaziev case, the investigation speaks of the involvement of a number of other judges in the scheme, whose names have not been disclosed but who are known to still be serving on the Supreme Court. Despite a certain positive start at the beginning of the Supreme Court’s work, the old elites have gradually entrenched themselves in the Grand Chamber — exploiting the Kniaziev case, among other things — and are now issuing one ruling after another in support of judges who lack integrity, shielding them from dismissal and blocking judicial reform.

The failures of the Supreme Court are described in greater detail in the project “The Supreme Court unmasked: corruption, obstruction of reforms, and Russian passports.”

The SBI — investigations exist, but against whom?

The selection of the head of the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) in 2017 took place without any international oversight. The winner — Roman Truba — was the result of a political compromise rather than an objective assessment of professional qualifications or integrity. He subsequently found himself at the centre of a scandal over a leak of audio recordings indicating his involvement in the unlawful closure of cases initiated by his own Bureau.

In 2021, a similar situation arose. The director’s post then went to Oleksii Sukhachov, who, according to journalists’ reporting, obtained his position thanks to connections with Oleh Tatarov and Andrii Portnov.

Today, the SBI exhibits clear signs of political dependence. In 2025, its employees pressured HQCJ members through a series of searches conducted immediately after an examination was scheduled as part of the qualification assessment of judges of Kyiv’s Pecherskyi and Shevchenkivskyi district courts and DACK. And in July, it also carried out searches at the home of anti-corruption activist Vitalii Shabunin without a court order. These actions directly indicate the use of the SBI as an instrument of political persecution.

International experts are still needed in commissions in Ukraine

Is the work of bodies whose leadership or members were selected with the participation of international experts ideal? No, it is not. But does improving them consist in making them fully dependent on the vertical of power? Absolutely not.

It is false logic to return to unreformed bodies or political players’ control over the selection of leaders and members of renewed judicial and anti-corruption bodies. Because the former do not think about the independent and effective functioning of the latter, they think about how to subordinate them to themselves.

As the comparison of institutions’ performance in this text shows, international experts in selection commissions are the best instrument for forming law enforcement bodies, anti-corruption structures, and courts.

Already now, the European Union is pointing out that returning international experts to the HQCJ Selection Commission and appointing four judges to the CCU are the next steps expected of Kyiv. These requirements were voiced by European Commission spokesperson Guillaume Mercier, who welcomed Kyiv’s decision regarding NABU and SAPO. Without fulfilling these points, Ukraine’s further EU integration is impossible, as the reforms of the HQCJ and the Constitutional Court were the first two commitments Ukraine undertook in order to obtain EU candidate status. After the resolution of the NABU and SAPO issue, these are the most important things Ukraine must do in the area of the rule of law.

The list of those who oppose the instrument of “international experts in commissions” is clear and logical:

• Vladimir Putin. Just a few days before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, he stated that “there is no independent court in Ukraine, and at the West’s request, the Kyiv authorities have granted representatives of international organisations the right of decisive vote in the selection of members of the highest judicial bodies.” This clearly irritates the enemy. Because where international experts were present, we got independent prosecutors, honest judges, and at least a chance at trust. And conversely — if a judge is corrupt, a bribe can be paid to remove Russian business from sanctions, with the money earned in Ukraine then channeled toward the war against Ukraine.
• Representatives of the Ukrainian authorities who share Putin’s views. For example, the theses of Yulia Tymoshenko virtually repeat the words of the Russian dictator — a comparison drawn by the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. She is also the initiator of submissions seeking to have the participation of international experts in commissions selecting members of Ukrainian bodies and courts declared unconstitutional. It is no surprise that such politicians fight against an effective instrument that builds political independence for state institutions. But this also explains why judges selected through an independent competition have not been appointed to the CCU.
• The old judicial mafia, which does not want to release judicial and anti-corruption bodies into independent operation. Because this would mean that individuals closest to the political top could find themselves under investigation, and that there would be no manually operated DACK to issue any “needed” ruling.

International experts in selection commissions are a mechanism that has proven its effectiveness in practice in building — if imperfect — independent anti-corruption and judicial institutions. And we are still far from the finish line in the fight against corruption and the cleansing of the judicial branch.

Should international experts serve on commissions permanently? No. But now is clearly not the time to abandon them. If this instrument is removed, Ukraine will have neither the rule of law, nor an economy, nor the capacity to defend itself. There will be no victory in the long-term perspective either.

A bright prognosis for our future lies in fulfilling what our European partners and common sense demand of us.