The Committee on Legal Policy backed a bill that raises judges’ pay and destroys the verification of their integrity

Today, the Committee on Legal Policy finally completed its preparations for the second reading of Bill No. 13165-2, which was supposed to improve the mechanism for verifying judges’ integrity declarations. In these declarations, judges confirm annually that they live within their official income, do not make decisions in situations of conflict of interest, do not take actions to acquire Russian citizenship, and so on.

In particular, verification of the declarations was meant to identify and eliminate corruption risks in the Supreme Court. After Vsevolod Kniaziev’s testimony about his colleagues in the case involving the largest bribe in the history of Ukrainian justice, ignoring the verification of declarations became impossible.

This mechanism is, among other things, a condition for receiving 700 million euros in aid under the Ukraine Facility, and is also one of the items on the Kachka-Kos list of Ukraine’s top 10 priority reforms for 2026. Ukraine was supposed to adopt the relevant bill a year ago. Yet instead of reviving a weak but important tool for verifying judicial integrity, the decision was made to break it entirely. Presumably so that, in the wake of the Kniaziev corruption scandal, Supreme Court judges would be vetted only formally, with no real consequences.

One more telling detail: the law that is supposed to unlock 700 million euros in international aid for Ukraine also provides for an increase in judges’ remuneration. And all of this at a moment when the state lacks funds for the army and defence.

What is wrong with the bill?

1. The declaration loses its key section on assets — the very section in which a judge was required to confirm that their lifestyle is consistent with their official income. And this is happening at a time when the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) is already unable to keep up with reviewing judges’ asset declarations. Now, anyone can follow the path of Supreme Court judge Iryna Hryhorieva, who challenged the NACP’s finding regarding her declaration of a fictitious loan from Vsevolod Kniaziev. That case has already been winding through the courts for years.
2. The declarations also drop questions about violations of the judicial oath, interference in the administration of justice, lustration prohibitions, and rulings on Maidan protesters. For members of parliament, these facts apparently no longer matter. Moreover, if a judge conceals them during a competition, it will not even affect their score.
3. Liability arises only when it is proven that a judge deliberately submitted false information. Such intent is virtually impossible to prove. False information in a judge’s declaration can therefore always be explained away as something they “forgot,” “failed to check,” or “misunderstood.”
4. A six-month review period has been introduced, after which information will automatically be deemed “unconfirmed.” In other words, if a case lands with a member of the High Qualifications Commission of Judges (HQCJ) who “sympathises” with the judge, the review can simply be dragged out, with no consequences. The same facts cannot be reviewed again, and the judge will emerge from the process with a clean integrity record.
5. A separate appeal of the HQCJ’s decision before the High Council of Justice has even ruled is a ready-made mechanism for avoiding accountability. It is enough to drag the case through the courts, and within two years, it will no longer matter what decision is reached: the statute of limitations for holding the judge accountable will have expired.
6. The claim of “has not committed corruption offences” is proposed to be verified only after a court judgment establishing the corrupt act has entered into force. But a simple question arises: what exactly remains to be verified at that point, if the court has already established the fact of the offence?
7. The HQCJ loses the ability to include in the declaration other statements necessary for verifying a judge’s integrity. In 2023, for instance, the Commission added questions about foreign citizenship and trips to Russia or temporarily occupied territories. Going forward, it will no longer be able to respond to new risks so quickly.
8. The HQCJ is to be prohibited from reviewing information submitted by anonymous complainants, even though no such prohibition currently exists. That is, even if the Commission receives detailed video footage of a judge stumbling out of an undeclared Lexus while intoxicated, it will be unable to investigate the matter solely because the complainant did not provide their name.
9. The mechanism drops the verification of statements concerning family ties. Information about a judge’s relatives holding official positions will simply be left without proper scrutiny.
10. For some statements, the reporting period is artificially narrowed to one year, including with regard to trips to Russia or temporarily occupied territories, actions to acquire foreign citizenship, and other sensitive facts. This means that if a judge submits a declaration for the first time in 2026 but travelled to Russia in 2024, that fact will simply fall outside the scope of the review.

The integrity and family ties declaration mechanism genuinely needs improvement. However, Bill No. 13165-2 in its current form does not meet partners’ requirements, does not resolve the problem of corruption risks in the Supreme Court, and turns integrity declarations into a review devoid of substance. If partners see that instead of fulfilling its commitments, Ukraine is adopting imitation reforms, we may not receive the 700 million euros in aid that are critically needed during the war.