Not unanimous: three members of the HQCJ oppose the assessment of a judge the Supreme Court tried to save

On September 16, the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) was scheduled to conduct a qualification assessment of Diana Kiblytska, a judge at the Industrial District Court of Dnipropetrovsk. She is one of 180 judges whom the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court attempted to shield from assessment.

While it seemed that the HQCJ had a unified stance on resuming assessment for these judges, a vote to add this issue to the agenda revealed dissent. Three commission members — Volkova, Melnyk, and Luhansky — opposed the interview with Kiblytska.

Ruslan Melnyk, in particular, proposed removing the issue from the agenda, citing the Supreme Court’s decision on judge Usaty, and argued that these 180 judges had already completed the qualification assessment at the three-member panel stage. Volkova and Luhansky appear to share this view. Previously, the Anti-Corruption Action Center confirmed that Luhansky’s academic degree is fraudulent, and he has faced other allegations. Volkova has also been criticized by civil society representatives.

Judge Kiblytska herself did not appear due to health reasons, leading to a postponement.

This contradictory stance by Volkova, Melnyk, and Luhansky regarding the qualification assessment of judges on the list of 180 raises concerns that they may be assisting the Supreme Court in “shielding” compromised judges from the vetting. The Supreme Court’s decision exacerbates the judiciary crisis, contradicting both the law and its own previous practices. DEJURE Foundation hopes that HQCJ members will ultimately adopt a unified approach to evaluating these judges and that new names from the list of 180 will soon appear on the Commission’s schedule.