One year of the Service of the Disciplinary Inspectors: large number of complaints and the salary problem

The Service of the Disciplinary Inspectors (SDI) presented the results of its first year of work. This was one of the few public occasions when the Service was able to speak in detail not only about statistics of disciplinary liability, but also about the challenges it faces and the proposals that could improve the effectiveness of holding judges disciplinarily accountable.

According to the Head of the SDI Taras Kuzyk, the Service fulfilled the indicators foreseen by the EU Ukraine Facility programme, on which Ukraine’s financial assistance depends. Over the year, disciplinary inspectors acting individually and the disciplinary chambers of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) considered 10,382 complaints, which is 15% more than in 2024, when the SDI had not yet been operational.

As a result of the review:

• 383 disciplinary cases were opened;

• 163 conclusions on holding judges disciplinarily liable were prepared;

• in 92 cases, the disciplinary chambers adopted decisions to impose disciplinary liability;

• with respect to 15 judges, the most severe sanction was applied — submission for dismissal from office.

At the same time, a significant part of the presentation was devoted to the challenges the Service faces on a daily basis.

• In 2025 alone, around 11,000 disciplinary complaints were submitted to the HCJ — 36% more than the previous year. All complaints submitted after the launch of the SDI must be reviewed by the disciplinary chambers within 18 months. If this does not happen, the cases are closed due to the expiration of the statutory time limits. During its first year, the SDI managed to review only about 34% of priority complaints — those that may lead to a judge’s dismissal or have significant public interest. To reduce the workload, SDI representatives proposed granting inspectors the power to single-handedly leave complaints without consideration and return them on all six grounds provided for in Part 1 of Article 44 of the Law “On the High Council of Justice.”
• During the discussion, the Head of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Policy, Denys Maslov, asked whether narrowing the circle of complainants could reduce the number of complaints, as recommended by the Venice Commission. Representatives of the SDI and the HCJ did not support this idea. Inspector Valerii Osetrov and HCJ Deputy Chair Oksana Kvasha stressed that such narrowing would not produce the desired effect and would rather help avoid disciplinary liability. According to Osetrov, most unfounded complaints are filed by parties dissatisfied with court decisions, while a significant share of disciplinary sanctions is based on complaints submitted by other persons, including members of the public.
• A separate block of problems concerns staffing. The Head of the Competition Commission for the selection of SDI inspectors Rėda Molienė stated that the low level of remuneration already creates difficulties in recruiting candidates and threatens the loss of current inspectors. Ms. Molienė noted: “Frankly speaking, salaries in the Service are not that high, while the work involves a huge workload and complex procedures. Appearing before the High Council of Justice is not an easy task for any professional.” Deputy Head of the SDI Viktoriia Nedybaliuk clarified that inspectors receive about UAH 55,000 per month, which is almost twice less than the average salary of a first-instance judge, whose cases they review. At the same time, the requirements for candidates and the competitive procedures for inspectors and judges are comparable. Therefore, in order to retain current inspectors and attract professional and high-integrity lawyers to vacant positions, salaries should be increased to the level of first-instance judges.
• Among other problems is the uneven attitude of HCJ members toward inspectors, who are sometimes perceived not as independent participants in disciplinary proceedings but as assistants. The discussion stressed the need to move from a paternalistic approach to a partnership model between HCJ members and inspectors. In addition, inspectors are overloaded with technical functions — summoning participants, organising access to case files, and other procedural tasks that could be performed by the HCJ Secretariat.
• During the event, the SDI also presented a number of proposals: to grant the reporting inspector the right to appeal decisions of the disciplinary chamber (see our analytical note for details), to establish a mechanism for reporting interference in the activities of inspectors, and to introduce a real mechanism for holding lawyers liable for filing unfounded disciplinary complaints. At the same time, the latter proposal will have a limited effect without a reform of the disciplinary bodies of the Bar.

The first year of work of the Service of the Disciplinary Inspectors has shown that the institution is capable of delivering results and fulfilling Ukraine’s international commitments. However, without addressing systemic problems — primarily the overload caused by the flow of new complaints, the assignment of technical duties to inspectors, and the lack of competitive remuneration — it is still too early to speak about the sustainable development of the Service.