NGOs call for the retention and continuation of international experts’ involvement in selection commissions

On June 1, 2025, the tenure of international experts in the Selection Commission for the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) expired. Their seats are to be filled by representatives of the unreformed Council of Judges and the Ukrainian Bar Association. In November, the tenure of international experts in the Public Council of International Experts (PCIE) for the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) and other similar commissions is also set to expire. Thus, unless the involvement of international experts is continuously extended, Ukraine will lose the safeguard of the HQCJ’s independence — and with it, the prospect of genuine rule of law for years to come.

Two years after its reboot, the HQCJ has increased the transparency of competitions and already launched the selection process for more than two thousand new judges for local and appellate courts. Under the new composition, every fifth candidate judge receives a recommendation for dismissal following the interview, ranging from “Maidan judges” like Olena Izovitova-Vakim to judges from the District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK), such as Tetiana Sheiko.

These achievements would not have been possible without the EU integration process and the decisive voting power of international experts: the reform of the HQCJ and the High Council of Justice (HCJ) was the second of seven requirements that Ukraine had to meet in order to obtain EU candidate status and begin accession negotiations. The involvement of international experts ensured that the political or corporate interests of vested actors did not affect the final list of candidates for these institutions.

Now the HQCJ faces even more ambitious challenges: filling 2,350 vacancies in local and appellate courts, forming two new administrative courts, conducting another selection for the HACC, and renewing the Supreme Court.

However, the HQCJ’s independence is under threat. The institution is under systematic pressure from the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI), and the end of the international experts’ tenure opens the door for “puppet” candidates from Ukrainian institutions. For instance, Lidiia Izovitova, the head of the Bar, known for her ties to Viktor Medvedchuk, will participate in nominating Ukrainian experts to the Selection Commission. Under such nominators, the commission would consist of representatives of the old corrupt elite seeking a return to the Yanukovych era. As a result, the HQCJ risks turning back into a recruitment centre for dependent judges, nullifying the efforts of the current HQCJ.

Reform experience since 2014 has shown that among all models for selecting judges and other officials, only those involving international experts have been effective. The most telling examples come from newly established institutions and their commissions: in five years, the HACC has issued over two hundred verdicts against top-level corrupt officials; the Ethics Council blocked the appointment of odious candidates to the HCJ; the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) improved its performance in managing conflicts of interest after a selection involving international experts. Where external oversight was absent — like in the Council of Judges — the system continues to reproduce itself.

The model of a casting vote of external experts has already become the “gold standard” beyond the judiciary as well; it is supported by the majority of the public: 56% of Ukrainians believe international experts should have the prevailing vote in judicial selection.

We firmly believe that preserving the prevailing vote of international experts is not a matter of formal procedure but a strategic choice: either an independent HQCJ and fair competitions today, or a return to the vicious circle of impunity for many years to come. We choose the former and call on:

1. The Verkhovna Rada and the President of Ukraine — to urgently adopt a law that extends the tenure of international experts in the Selection Commission until the completion of key selection processes;
2. The European Union — to enshrine in Ukraine’s EU integration documents clear conditions stipulating the prevailing vote of international experts in commissions that assist in forming rule-of-law institutions;
3. International partners and donors of Ukraine — to ensure sufficient financial and organisational support for the work of such commissions, so they remain independent and capable of fulfilling their key mandate.

1. DEJURE Foundation
2. Anti-Corruption Action Centre
3. AutoMaidan
4. ANTS
5. Transparency International Ukraine
6. Anti-corruption center “MEZHA”
7. Public Control Platform
8. Kharkiv Anti-Corruption Center
9. Centre for Economic Strategy
10. Anti-Corruption Headquarters
11. StateWatch
12. Human Rights Centre ZMINA
13. The CHESNO Movement
14. Expert Group “Sova”
15. Zaporizhzhia Centre of Investigation
16. Anti-Corruption Research and Education Centre (ACREC)
17. Institute for Development, Cooperation and European Integration
18. Future Development Agency
19. NGO “HeroYU”
20. CF “Polina Kravchenko Charitable Foundation”
21. NGO “Genealogical Community ‘Arkhisovist’”
22. NGO “Ukrainian Film Institute”
23. NGO “Zero Waste Lutsk”
24. NGO “Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group”
25. Public Platform “Nova Kraina”
26. NGO “Lviv Group/NGL.media”
27. NGO “Ukrainian Library Association”
28. NGO “Chervonyi Huber”
29. NGO “Social Capital”
30. NGO “Dyvna Ukrayina”
31. NGO “Crimean Centre for Business and Cultural Cooperation ‘Ukrainian House’”
32. Civil Holding “GROUP OF INFLUENCE”
33. NGO DiXi Group
34. International charitable organisation “Ecology-Law-Human”
35. NGO “Nezalezhni”
36. National Interests Advocacy Network ANTS
37. NGO “Horizon of Change”
38. NGO “Toloka Association”
39. Foundation “Stand with Ukraine”
40. NGO “Centre Dobrochin”
41. NGO “Chernihiv Human Rights Centre”
42. NGO “Boyko Ethnological Society”
43. CF “East SOS”
44. NGO “Women’s Anti-Corruption Movement”
45. NGO “Green Leaf”
46. CSO “Future of Verkhniodniprovshchyna”
47. Kremenchuk Anti-Corruption Center
48. NGO “Regional Development Agency of the Siverskyi Region of Ukraine”
49. NGO “ZORAKS”
50. NGO “Publishers’ Forum”
51. CSO “Ukrainian Capital Markets Association”
52. Ukrainian Educational Research Association (UERA)
53. NGO “Ukraine-Europe-World”
54. NGO “Ukrainian LGBT+ Military and Veterans for Equal Rights”
55. NGO “Local Development and Reforms Center”
56. NGO “Force of Azov”
57. NGO “Museum of Contemporary Art”
58. NGO “YOuth Democratic Association”
59. NGO “Democratic Initiatives Incubator” 
60. NGO “The Dukh i Litera” (“Spirit and Letter”) 
61. NGO “Modern Women of Luhansk Oblast”
62. CF “International Development Foundation”
63. NGO “Vyshche”
64. International Charitable Foundation “Ukrainian Foundation for Public Health”
65. All-Ukrainian Charitable Organization “Ukrainian Legal Aid Foundation”
66. NGO Human Rights Organization “House of Law”
67. NGO “All-Ukrainian League of Lawyers Against Corruption”
68. NGO “Ecosphere”
69. “Coordination Center for Public Oversight”
70. NGO “Zolotarykha”
71. NGO “Code 21”
72. NGO “BCD”
73. NGO LGBT Association “LIGA”
74. Poltava Branch of the Public Service of Ukraine
75. NGO “Center for Sustainable Community Development”
76. NGO “Coalition of Cultural Activists”
77. NGO “Center for Law Enforcement Research”
78. NGO “ECO Center”
79. NGO “Ukrainian Hemp Association”
80. NGO “Ecology and Health”
81. Odesa Regional Branch of the All-Ukrainian NGO Committee of Voters of Ukraine (CVU)
82. Charitable Foundation “Invictus – Power of the Unbroken”
83. NGO Cultural Business Edication Hub
84. NGO “Communications for Change”
85. NGO “Neizats”
86. NGO “Krygolam”
87. Regional Historical and Search Association “Patriot”
88. NGO “Center for Political Studies”
89. Crimean Tatar Resource Center 
90. NGO “Center for Social and Psychological Adaptation and Legal Support”