Is Ukraine moving away from international experts in judicial selection?

Olha Stefanishyna, Ukraine’s Vice Prime Minister for European Integration and Minister of Justice announced during the Government’s Q&A session on December 6 that the exclusion of independent international experts from judicial selection commissions will be included in the roadmap for EU-related rule-of-law legislation.

However, such proposals are harmful and fundamentally contradict Ukraine’s European integration efforts.

The involvement of international experts in judicial selection commissions has become a “gold standard” for transparency and integrity. For instance, the Public Council of International Experts (PCIE) played a pivotal role in advancing judicial reform in Ukraine. During the establishment of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), the PCIE effectively blocked nearly all candidates of low integrity from being appointed.

Currently, six judicial commissions include international experts. In anti-corruption and other institutions, this number is even higher, reflecting their effectiveness. In contrast, mixed-format commissions — which include Ukrainian representatives appointed by the discredited Council of Judges — have significantly undermined the quality of appointments to the High Council of Justice (HCJ) and the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ).

The Council of Judges has a track record of appointing individuals of low integrity and questionable professionalism to these commissions. Examples include figures involved in high-profile judicial scandals, such as those implicated in the infamous “Vovk tapes”, a former Supreme Court Chief Justice under Yanukovych, and a judge who released a Berkut officer accused of killing three Euromaidan activists. Eliminating international experts from these processes risks reverting Ukraine to the pre-integration era dominated by figures like Pavlo Vovk, Bohdan Lvov, and Pavlo Hrechkivskyi.

Moreover, Ukraine has committed to establishing new courts with international involvement in judicial selection as part of its agreements with the EU and other international partners. This includes forming a new High Administrative Court to replace the District Administrative Court of Kyiv.

Rather than reducing the role of international experts, Ukraine should strengthen and expand their participation. Only when the EU confirms that Ukraine’s judicial system meets its standards should such mechanisms be reconsidered. This should be a priority for the Government.

Even Stefanishyna herself has emphasized the importance of public trust in the judicial system as a key criterion for reform. Why, then, would the Government seek to abandon one of the few mechanisms capable of restoring this trust? This remains a question.