Second Panel of the HQCJ to conduct qualification assessments for four judges without Public Integrity Council involvement - 5E444
Back

Second Panel of the HQCJ to conduct qualification assessments for four judges without Public Integrity Council involvement

Tomorrow, November 26, the Second Panel of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (composed of Volkova, Sydorovych, and Kydysiuk) plans to conduct qualification assessments for four more judges without the involvement of the Public Integrity Council (PIC). Last week, the same panel deemed judges Shkarlat and Chubai fit for their positions despite the absence of opinions of the PIC regarding their integrity.

This action by the Second Panel violates prior agreements with the PIC, which stipulated that hearings would only be scheduled for judges whose dossiers had been fully reviewed by both bodies. However, the PIC’s inability to copy data from judges’ dossiers — being restricted to viewing them without the option to copy information — has made thorough analysis impossible.

Tomorrow’s schedule includes interviews with judges Oleksandr Haiiev, Ruslana Hukova, Denys Shcherbak, and Petro Burda. Notably, judge Petro Burda of the Petropavlivsk District Court in the Dnipropetrovsk region already has a negative integrity assessment from a prior composition of the PIC. The reasons include false information he provided regarding his professional activities and his omission of his daughter in family ties declarations for 2017–2019. In 2016, his daughter worked as an assistant to another judge, which raised concerns about the concealment of close relatives employed within the judiciary — an act that violates transparency requirements and conflict-of-interest prevention measures.

While it would be hopeful to expect the Second Panel to reconsider and withdraw these judges from assessment, past experience indicates that Volkova, Sydorovych, and Kydysiuk are intent on undermining public participation in the qualification process. This deliberate exclusion sabotages the reform and cleansing of Ukraine’s judiciary.

Such actions by the Second Panel violate Ukraine’s commitments to ensure meaningful public involvement in judicial qualification assessments, a point emphasized by the European Commission in its latest report.

Other news
To the section
New rules bring new risks. What the draft law on the selection of HCJ members changes
New rules bring new risks. What the draft law on the selection of HCJ members changes

The government’s draft law submitted to the Venice Commission for consideration, in addition to a new procedure for forming the HQCJ, also substantially changes the procedures for electing (appointing) members of the High Council of Justice (HCJ). The proposed changes may create new risks for...

The government proposes a “broken bicycle” for international experts in the commission selecting HQCJ members
The government proposes a “broken bicycle” for international experts in the commission selecting HQCJ members

The High Qualifications Commission of Judges (HQCJ) is a body that can recommend a person for the position of judge or recommend their dismissal. That is, whoever decides your case, should you suddenly have to go to court, depends on the HQCJ’s assessment. Judges over judges, so to speak. Logi...

DACK cases and judges can end up in the same court again
DACK cases and judges can end up in the same court again

The High Qualifications Commission of Judges (HQCJ) has recommended transferring 6 judges of the liquidated DACK to the Kyiv District Administrative Court (KDAC). All the cases of the liquidated DACK had previously been transferred to the KDAC as well. In other words, the nameplate has changed, but...

Special by topic
To the section
HQCJ:Accomplishments and Problems
Judicial reform roadmap