How Roman Babiy created a loophole to keep judges of low integrity in office

While the public awaited the dismissal of Judge Inna Otrosh Jr., things did not go as expected. Although the issue was being considered, the High Council of Justice (HCJ) paused the proceedings.

During the session, an expert opinion from the Council of Europe was revealed, suggesting that Otrosh should not undergo a plenary session at the High Qualifications Commission of Judges (HQCJ). According to the judge, she received an analysis of Law No. 679 from the Council of Europe office, developed by Gerhard Reissner.

“Once the HCJ submits a proposal to the President, no further evaluation procedures can be conducted. The process is considered complete, ending with the President’s appointment. The principle of legal certainty prohibits repeating any procedures,” judge Otrosh confidently quoted from the document during the HCJ session.

What is Law No. 679-IX, and how is Roman Babiy “saving” judges of low integrity from assessment?

In 2020, MP Roman Babiy introduced the draft law proposing to allow the HCJ to extend judges’ secondments until a new HQCJ composition is formed. Initially, the draft law solely addressed secondments. However, following the parliamentary tradition of letting draft laws “sit” and then rushing them through in “turbo mode”, the final version often diverges significantly from the original. In this case, the draft law evolved to permit the HCJ to submit proposals to the President for the appointment of five-year term judges who had only partially undergone qualification assessment (interviews with HQCJ panels).

The HCJ submitted nearly 100 “five-year term judges” for appointment, despite them having the Public Integrity Council’s negative opinions. After the HQCJ resumed operations, it was supposed to complete the evaluation of these judges. However, these judges now refuse to complete their qualification evaluations, claiming that since a proposal has been made, the evaluation is complete.

The law did not specify that assessment for such judges was complete, nor was this mentioned during parliamentary discussions or in the draft law’s explanatory note. Furthermore, this narrative contradicts logic — the appointment process differs from the qualification assessment, which every judge must complete. Therefore, upon resuming the assessment, the HQCJ summoned these judges for full panel interviews. Four judges (Klyuchnyk, Otrosh, Vasylieva, and Sharko) have already received recommendations for dismissal by the HCJ.

However, Roman Babiy continues to assert that “this was the plan all along” and defends the judges of low integrity:

“I was surprised to learn about HQCJ’s intention to re-assess these judges… at a plenary session, which clearly does not align with the spirit or purpose of the law”.

We hope that the HCJ will not succumb to these manipulations and will indeed dismiss the judges of low integrity. Otherwise, Roman Babiy will succeed in keeping judges like Inna Otrosh Jr. (owner of unexplained millions), Andriy Klyuchnyk (who jailed a Maidan participant), and Natalia Sharko (who applied to the so-called “court” established by the occupiers after the occupation) in the system.