Reformer of the week – DEJURE Foundation
DEJURE Foundation, a legal think tank, on Sept. 25 outlined the major flaws of judicial reform proposed by President Volodymyr Zelensky and suggested ways of correcting them.
The Verkhovna Rada on Sept. 12 passed in the first reading the judicial reform bill.
The legislation envisages fully replacing the composition of the High Qualification Commission of Judges, which vets and hires judges. The bill also stipulates halving the number of Supreme Court judges from 200 to 100 and selecting a new, smaller Supreme Court out of the old judges of the court.
Under the bill, a selection commission comprising three members of the Council of Judges and three members of the Public Council of International Experts, a foreign advisory body, will choose new members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges within 30 days after the law comes into effect.
The DEJURE legal think-tank called on the Rada to amend the bill and give foreign experts control of the selection process for the new High Qualification Commission. DEJURE said that four selection commission members out of six should be foreign experts.
DEJURE also criticized the bill for failing to replace the composition of the High Council of Justice, the main judicial governing body. Civil society has called for re-launching the council, and Zelensky’s team had previously promised to do so.
Meanwhile, a new commission comprising three High Council of Justice members and three members of the Public Council of International Experts will be able to initiate the firing of members of the High Council of Justice and the High Qualification Commission if they violate ethics and integrity standards or the law, according to Zelensky’s legislation. The problem is that it will still be up to the unreformed High Council of Justice to fire them, which may sabotage the process.
DEJURE called for strengthening foreigners’ participation in the ethics commission. The think tank said that four ethics commission members out of six should be foreign experts.
The think tank also suggested that the ethics commission’s proposal to fire a member of the High Council of Justice or the High Qualification Commission can only be rejected by a joint meeting of the High Council of Justice and the ethics commission, given that at least two foreign experts uphold the decision.
Anti-reformer of the week – Andriy Ovsiyenko
The High Council of Justice on Sept. 24 elected Andriy Ovsiyenko as its chairman to replace Volodymyr Hovorukha.
Ovsiyenko has acquired the reputation of an old guard judicial official during his career, and his election has been ctiticized by civic activists as a sign that the judiciary will not change. The Public Integrity Council keeps calling for replacing the whole composition of the High Council of Justice.
High Council of Justice spokeswoman Oksana Lysenko dismissed the accusations against Ovsiyenko as rumors spread by civic activists.
Ovsiyenko was among those who signed an Aug. 20 High Council of Justice ruling to refuse to suspend top judges who face charges of obstructing justice and issuing unlawful rulings.
One of the judges, Pavlo Vovk, said he had resigned as head of the Kyiv District Administrative Court but he will remain a judge of the court and will be able to consider cases.
The council argued that there was no risk of Vovk fleeing, said his suspension was not necessary for investigating him and referred to European legal standards.
The High Council of Justice’s decision has been lambasted by anti-corruption watchdogs since audio tapes released by investigators show the judges discussing the issuing of unlawful rulings and other criminal schemes. They deny the accusations of wrongdoing.
Roman Ratushny, the founder of a group that fights illegal construction in Kyiv’s Protasiv Yar neighborhood, said that members of his group had seen Ovsiyenko and Hovorukha enter the Presidential Office on the eve of the council’s decision on Vovk.
The High Council of Justice told the Slidstvo.info investigative journalism project that Hovorukha and Ovsiyenko had visited the Presidential Office to discuss judicial reform.
Meanwhile, Roman Maselko, a member of the Public Integrity Council and a lawyer for EuroMaidan protesters, said that Ovsiyenko had sabotaged a complaint he had filed with the High Council of Justice.
