It’s taken two years, two competing drafts laws and two worried letters to the government from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, but on June 7 Ukraine’s parliament finally passed the second and final reading of a bill to create an anti-corruption court
Members of the Public Integrity Council accuse President Petro Poroshenko of deceiving foreign partners and trying to create a fake anti-corruption court.
Establishing the Anticorruption Court in Ukraine: How to Not Make It an Instrument of the Corrupt Officials
The first most important question is the selection of judges, which needs to be organized in a manner that only the experts who secured unanimous support from representatives of the public, the international partners, and lastly from the Ukrainian government bodies could become anticorruption judges. CPLR experts, Roman Kuybida and Mykola Khavroniuk, explained the crucial aspects could still be taken into account during the revisions of the draft law on anticorruption court
Analysts from the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform and DEJURE Foundation tracked and recorded the course of the competition to the Supreme Court and prepared an analytical report thereon. For the first time, the selection of judges to the highest judicial institution proceeded through an open competition which lasted almost a year and ended in November 2017. Already in December that year, the new court started its operation
Civil society organizations call for rejection of a Draft Law that downplays the role of the public in the judges' selection and appraisal process
On November 17, a revised Draft law No.6593 was registered in the Parliament. Should Draft law be adopted, the powers of the current members of the PIC will be terminated and so will be the public participation in the process of judges’ selection and evaluation as the draft law contains a number of regulations that make the PIC dependent upon the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine
More than 20% of appointed judges of the Supreme Court are those who received negative opinions from the CCI that were ignored by the HQCJ and the HCJ. However, with the exception of the President of the Supreme Court, other senior positions in the new Supreme Court went to former chairs of higher courts, with respect to whose integrity the CCI has voiced serious reservations, - Roman Kuybida, Board Member of the CPLR, about the forming of the new Supreme Court
Every third expert in Ukraine trusts the new Supreme Court, according to a public opinion survey. Given the high level of distrust in the judiciary as a whole, this indicator can be considered high, experts of the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (CPLR), which conducted the survey, said at a press conference “How should the new Supreme Court look like: the survey results” on December 7
It is evident that change of position of Presidential Administration is connected with the last finding of Venice Commission on two draft laws on anticorruption courts. It was given in the ‘Slovo i Dilo’, and which Deputy of the Head of the Board of the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform Roman Kuybida said, assessing an information that political party 'Block Petra Poroshenka’ had an intention to introduce a draft law on foundation of anticorruption courts
Open Statement by the Center of Policy and Legal Reform to the President of Ukraine, the European Union, the Council of Europe, and donor states
Open Statement concerning the conduct of an international audit of the procedure of selection of judges to the Supreme Court
DRI’s briefing paper about meetings and relevant legislation was written jointly with the experts Roman Kuybida and Maksym Sereda from the Centre of Policy and Legal Reforms (CPLR)
Last year has been a decisive one for the launch of a full-fledged judicial reform. The Constitution was amended, new laws “On Judiciary and Status of Judges”, “On Superior Council of Justice”, and two laws relating to the enforcement of judgments were adopted. After these came into force, the High Qualification Commission of Judges announced the competition to the new Supreme Court
CPLR experts Roman Kuybida and Maksym Sereda won at a fair competition for participating in activity of the Community Integrity Board
Judicial Error: Criteria for Differentiating Between Abuse (Arbitrariness), Negligence, and Good-Faith Conduct
Analytical Report prepared within the Council of Europe Project “Support for Reform of the Judicial Responsibility System in Ukraine” financed by the Fund for Human Rights
June 2, 2016, could be called the most productive day in the work of the Verkhovna Rada’s current convocation. This is based not on the number of adopted decisions, but on the scale of changes associated with the adopted laws and on the level of their support among Parliament members.
Judicial reform: public opinion of the population of Ukraine, December 2014
Judicial Reform in Ukraine: Challenges and Recommendations
The Report analyzes informal practices that have been in place in the course of application of the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine dd. April 13, 2012.
Current requirements and recommendations on judicial reform and prosecutorial reform in Ukraine of the Council of Europe bodies
Current requirements and recommendations on judicial reform and prosecutorial reform in Ukraine of the Council of Europe bodies (Parliamentary Assembly, Committee of Ministers, European Court of Human Rights, Venice Commission, Consultative Council of European Judges and the Consultative Council of European Prosecutor)
Legal opinion the Law of Ukraine on the restoration of trust in the judiciary in Ukraine: european standards and implementation challenges has been developed by Ukrainian experts Roman Kuybida
Compared with 2009 (before an implementation of judicial reform identified by the President Yanukovych) the number of such proceedings increased more than three times in 2012 and the number of judicial restraints increased four and a half times
Participants in the conference discussed the approaches to justice system reform in each country that was included in the study. The subject of the monitoring was analysis of judicial performance and of anticorruption measures. The research was based on several indicators (such as anti-corruption institutions; immunities; declaration of assets / interests; confiscation; judicial independence and accountability).