It’s happened: The HQCJ schedules an interview with the judge the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court tried to save
After the detrimental ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding judge Usatyi, the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) and the High Council of Justice (HCJ) were at a crossroads: whether to continue vetting of 180 judges with the Public Integrity Council (PIC) negative opinions or to start vetting the Supreme Court judges. It appears the HQCJ has made a decision — on Monday, September 16, the first interview is scheduled with a judge from this list — Diana Kiblytska of the Industrial District Court of Dnipropetrovsk. Moreover, she is one of the “five-year judges” for whom MP Roman Babiy created a “loophole” to keep low-integrity judges in their positions.
DEJURE Foundation welcomes this positive shift by the HQCJ regarding these judges and expects a fair decision. It is evident that the Commission has taken the position that these 180 judges must complete the vetting of their fitness for office through an interview with the full composition of the HQCJ, as required by law. The PIC has cancelled its 2019 negative opinion on judge Kiblytska, considering her explanations, and has provided information that needs to be discussed during the interview. Therefore, the review should proceed taking this decision into account.
Meanwhile, on September 19, the HCJ plans to consider submitting a recommendation to the President to appoint Mykola Zorik as a judge of the Kovpakivskyi District Court of Sumy. He is among the “five-year judges” category and the aforementioned list of 180. In 2019, a three-member HQCJ panel deemed him fit for office despite the negative opinion of the PIC. At the beginning of 2024, the HQCJ, in plenary composition, overcame the PIC’s negative opinion by obtaining the required majority vote during the interview and subsequently sent a recommendation for his permanent appointment. The Commission should not have sent such a recommendation, as the judge is among those whom Babiy tried to save and who had previously received a submission from the HCJ for permanent appointment.
It is clear that the High Council of Justice does not intend to consider the recommendation on its merits but is attempting to use it to help the Supreme Court let judges with integrity issues off the hook. Such actions by the HCJ will create a dangerous contradiction between two key judicial governance bodies. The consideration is likely aimed at drafting an HCJ decision that upholds the new practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court regarding judge Usatyi. At the same time, this will enable the HQCJ to schedule vetting for judges under the “new procedure,” including Supreme Court judges. DEJURE Foundation believes that it would be fair to start this process with the judges of the Grand Chamber, including its head, Stanislav Kravchenko.
Public organizations have repeatedly called on the HQCJ to continue vetting these 180 judges in accordance with the law and previous practice, and on the HCJ to consider the Commission’s submissions related to them. Therefore, DEJURE Foundation expects the HCJ to support the position already clearly taken by the High Qualification Commission of Judges rather than deepening the crisis created by the Supreme Court’s decision.
