Imitation instead of reforms: MPs turned the judicial integrity check into a formality

The Verkhovna Rada adopted in the second reading draft law No. 13165-2, which was supposed to improve the mechanism for verifying judges’ integrity declarations. However, in its current version, the document does not strengthen the verification — on the contrary, it preserves old loopholes and creates new risks for avoiding accountability.

A draft law with the right title but problematic content

Judges’ integrity declarations are annual documents in which a judge confirms, for example, that they live within their means, have not made decisions in a conflict of interest, have not obtained a Russian passport, and so forth.

This instrument was an opportunity to scrutinise Supreme Court judges following the large-scale corruption scandal involving Kniaziev and other suspects. MPs should have strengthened, not weakened, the mechanisms for vetting the judiciary — and the Supreme Court judges in particular. Both the European Commission and the Venice Commission have emphasised the need for effective verification.

Yet the adopted draft law completely dismantles the integrity declaration verification instrument and turns its completion into a formality with no real accountability.

What is the problem?

The problem is not limited to isolated technical details.

First, the draft law removes the verification of the asset-related section and other current risk areas. Even when violations are identified, there will be no real consequences for inaccurate data. A judge will always have the option to say “I forgot” or “I did not understand the question,” and that is effectively it — the error is treated as unintentional and no liability follows.

Second, this dismantling of the integrity declaration verification instrument creates risks for Ukraine’s compliance with its international commitments. Improving such verification is directly linked to a portion of funding under the Ukraine Facility — specifically, a package of €700 million. This is therefore not merely a matter of judicial reform quality, but of the trust of international partners and Ukraine’s continued progress on the path toward the EU.

A separate concern is the forthcoming vetting of Supreme Court judges. Even the involvement of independent international experts may yield no results if the law does not provide for real accountability mechanisms in response to identified violations.

What needs to be corrected?

DEJURE stresses that without substantive content, the integrity declaration verification loses its purpose. For this instrument to function, it is necessary to:

• restore the asset-related section to the verification scope;
• provide for liability for gross negligence;
• prevent verification deadlines from automatically “whitewashing” judges;
• suspend statutes of limitations during judicial appeals;
• ensure verification of family ties;
• not narrow the verification period where risks remain current;
• provide for genuine verification of Supreme Court judges with the involvement of independent international experts.

Integrity declarations must be an instrument of accountability

Шntegrity declaration verification is needed not for reporting to partners and not as a checkbox in legislation. It is needed so that society can be confident that judges who issue decisions on behalf of the state meet integrity standards, and that judicial reform is moving Ukraine toward the EU.

We call on members of parliament to correct the law and make the verification of integrity declarations real rather than formal. The simulation of reforms may work in the short run, but it will not take us far.