International Experts Being Phased Out: Will the Authorities Let the Courts Return to the Yanukovych Era?
By DEJURE Foundation, Automaidan NGO, and Anti-Corruption Action Center
This summer may bring good news for judges longing for the rollback of judicial reform and the return of the impunity they enjoyed back in 2013. On June 1, the tenure of international experts on the Selection Commission for the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) expires. While those unfamiliar with the topic may scroll past this news, for the caste of low-integrity judges, it’s a long-anticipated date.
Why should the public care about preserving the gains of judicial reform, and what threats lie ahead? Read on for a detailed explanation.
Attacks on the HQCJ as it closes in on low-integrity elites
The HQCJ is currently involved in two critical processes:
- Cleansing the judiciary of low-integrity judges — about 1,500 judges still need to undergo qualification assessment.
- Selecting candidates to fill 2,350 vacancies in the first instance and the appellate courts.
The success of both efforts depends fundamentally on the composition of the HQCJ. Moreover, this body will make final decisions on selecting judges for the newly established administrative courts, the High Anti-Corruption Court, and the Supreme Court.
The HQCJ didn’t start functioning as intended right away. Progress came thanks to EU integration requirements: reforming the HQCJ and the High Council of Justice (HCJ) was the second of seven key conditions for Ukraine to obtain candidate status and open accession talks with the EU. Under the new HQCJ, every fifth judge receives a dismissal recommendation after the interview. Those recommended for dismissal have included Maidan judges Maryna Lozynska, Andrii Kliuchnyk, Olena Izovitova-Vakim; judges of the DACK (District Administrative Court of Kyiv) Tetiana Sheiko and Petro Kovzel; and Kyiv Commercial Court judge Inna Otrosh, who denied Russian aggression, regularly visited occupied Crimea and Russia, and claimed her luxury property was a gift from her mother, a powerful figure under Yanukovych.
Today, the HQCJ has a fragile but reform-oriented majority that largely supports dismissing low-integrity judges. When it began to closely assess notorious judges from the Pechersk District Court of Kyiv and the DACK, the system retaliated. On March 7, the HQCJ published a notice about upcoming interviews with judges from these courts. Just four days later, the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) raided HQCJ premises.
The SBI quickly launched a stream of criminal cases against HQCJ members, based on complaints from discredited individuals and fabricated grounds. DEJURE Foundation, Anti-Corruption Action Center, and Automaidan detailed these attacks and their impact in a joint publication No Cleansing for the Judiciary? How the SBI and Pechersk Court Are Trying to Block Reform.
These attacks aim to disrupt the qualification assessments of judges from Pechersk and the DACK, make HQCJ work unbearable, and pressure its members to resign. The HQCJ already has one vacant seat and may soon have another. Member Volodymyr Luhanskyi was recently served a notice of suspicion by NABU and SAPO over illicit salary supplements for a fake academic degree. Given the credible grounds for this suspicion, a second vacancy could emerge.
More could follow due to the SBI’s pressure. Even the loss of one or two votes could tip the balance in the HQCJ. For those opposing reform, it’s convenient if the public and authorities “forget” to extend the tenure of international experts on the HQCJ Selection Commission. Here’s why that matters.
What happens after June 1?
To ensure impartiality in HQCJ appointments, the Selection Commission, where international experts hold the decisive vote, conducts the selection. On June 1, their tenure ends. By law, they will be replaced by delegates from domestic institutions, including the Ukrainian Bar Council, chaired by Lidiia Izovitova, an ally of Viktor Medvedchuk. Ironically, the Bar, which is plagued with problems and needs reform itself, would now be in charge of selecting members of the HQCJ. The European Commission recommended reforming the Bar in its 2023 and 2024 reports on Ukraine’s EU accession progress.
Three Selection Commission members come from the Council of Judges. Since 2019, this body has been headed by Bohdan Monich, a protégé of Pavlo Vovk, Andrii Portnov, and Andrii Bohdan. After the infamous “Vovk’s tapes” were released, Monich not only failed to condemn Vovk but publicly defended him. He actively opposed the liquidation of the DACK, even petitioning the President and Parliament to stop it. As head of the Council of Judges, Monich stalled the HCJ reform and blocked the reboot of the HQCJ in 2019. DEJURE experts have compiled more facts in their project Failures of the Council of Judges.
The remaining seats on the Selection Commission will be filled by unreformed institutions — the National Academy of Legal Sciences and the Prosecutors’ Conference. Without international experts, the Commission will be dominated by figures from the old corrupt elite — those pushing to take Ukraine’s judiciary back to the Yanukovych era.
This would shatter the fragile progressive majority in the HQCJ, as new members would be politically biased or of questionable integrity. If low-integrity candidates are appointed to the HQCJ without international oversight, it would undo reform progress and jeopardize upcoming judicial appointments.
The only way to prevent this is by legislatively extending the tenure of international experts on the Selection Commission. Failing to do so will trigger significant backsliding in the judicial system — both in cleansing and building it.
These risks threaten every level of the judiciary — here’s how.
Who will appoint over 2,000 judges?
Interviews for appellate court appointments have already begun. The HQCJ is expected to appoint 550 judges, with 856 candidates having reached the interview stage.
Next, the HQCJ will select around 1,800 judges for first instance courts, a process spanning 2025–2026. It will also appoint judges to two new administrative courts, the High Anti-Corruption Court, and a renewed Supreme Court.
If MPs don’t extend the tenure of international experts and the SBI succeeds in forcing more HQCJ members to resign, compromised candidates may fill the vacant seats — undermining future competitions.
This isn’t just about the risk of appointing low-integrity judges across all instances — it’s about granting them lifetime positions (until age 65). Dismissing a judge is extremely difficult even now, which is why the process is slow. Instead of replenishing the judiciary with a new generation, Yanukovych loyalists will fill it with friends, relatives, and cronies. We’ve seen this before — during the previous HQCJ’s term, only 75 of 3,000 judges were recommended for dismissal during the assessment.
Ukraine won’t just lose a chance to modernize its judiciary — it will cement low-integrity individuals in place for decades. Such a rollback would close the door to EU membership and to building a capable, democratic state.
What choice will the authorities make?
Extending international experts’ tenure isn’t difficult — there’s precedent. The Public Council of International Experts (PCIE), which participates in High Anti-Corruption Court selection, had its mandate extended just last year.
Currently, however, the government appears set on rolling back reform while international partners remain focused solely on security. Vice Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna hinted at phasing out international experts back in winter 2024. A submission is now pending before the Constitutional Court seeking to declare all such commissions unconstitutional — signed by MPs from OPZZh, Batkivshchyna, and 15 members of the Sluha Narodu. In short, dismantling reform achievements may not even require new laws — authorities just need to wait for existing tenures to expire and do nothing.
To date, no draft law has been submitted in Parliament to extend the mandate of international experts on the Selection Commission. We urge MPs to recognize the consequences of ignoring this issue and to introduce the necessary legislation.
If the authorities fail to support extending the mandate of international experts, they will send a clear signal about where judicial reform is headed — straight back to the pre-revolutionary past.
