Review

Judicial reform boosted by the enactment of laws of Ukraine dd. June 02, 2016 «On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine (concerning the system of justice)» and «On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges» has upgraded approaches to the domestic judicial organization, the status of judges and many judicial institutions in general. The attention of authorities and society has been attracted not so much to the results of judicial activities, but to the parties that carry it out. Each judiciary representative has become responsible for regaining public trust to the judicial court institution. As one of tools required to demonstrate high qualification and competence of judicial community and to «cleanup» the judicial system of those not complying with such standards, an institute of qualification assessment has been introduced. It has been put in charge of the High Judicial Qualification Commission (HJQCU). The qualification assessment procedures have been launched on October 20, 2017 and are still ongoing. Based on the official data, as of December 26, 2018, 1624 judges have successfully passed the assessment and confirmed their compliance with their position, 419 judges of local and appeal courts failed to convince the HJQCU in complying with their positions. Out of these, 240 judges have accepted the resignation. Separate judges consider the applied procedure unjustified and pursue litigation against the HJQCU.

So, certain perception about this institution in action has already been developed, which allows for assessing existing achievements and miscalculations. And we shall acknowledge here that overwhelming majority of both the judges and the expert community disapproves of not so much the idea of qualification assessment of judges, as namely the implementation mechanism. It is confirmed by the sociological surveys’ data, which show that the qualification assessment of judges is considered to be dependent on the authorities, biased, non-transparent and corrupt.

Purpose of this article is to investigate the regulatory basis of the qualification assessment in Ukraine and to clarify the causes of its negative perception by the society.

Understanding the source of the distrust in the judges’ qualification assessment procedure would allow drafting proposals, which would support the efficiency of this institute and eliminate the reasons for perceiving it as an instrument of pressure on judges.

References

1. 1. Vysnovok Konsultatyvnoi Rady Yevropeiskykh suddiv № 17 (2014) shchodo otsiniuvannia diialnosti suddiv, yakosti pravosuddia i povahy do nezalezhnosti sudovoi vlady [Opinion of the Advisory Council of European Judges No. 17 (2014) on the evaluation of judges’ activity, the quality of justice and respect for the independence of the judiciary]. Strasburh, 24 zhovtnia 2014. дата звернення 17.12.2018.
2. 1 Рішення Європейського суду з прав людини від 14 червня 2007 р. у справі «Свято-Михайлівська Парафія проти України» дата звернення 17.12.2018.
3. 2 О Кібенко, ’Кваліфікаційний іспит vs Кваліфікаційне оцінювання’ дата звернення 17.12.2018.pdf> data zvernennia 15.12.2018 (in Ukrainian).
4. Vysnovok OBSIe/BDIPL shchodo Zakonu Ukrainy «Pro sudoustrii i status suddiv» [OSCE / ODIHR Opinion on the Law of Ukraine «On the Judiciary and Status of Judges»] Varshava. 30.06.2017. (p.49).
5. data zvernennia 16.12.2018 (in Ukrainian).
6. Monrealska universalna deklaratsiia pro nezalezhnist pravosuddia [Montreal Universal Declaration of Independence of Justice] (Persha svitova konferentsiia po nezalezhnosti pravosuddia, Monreal, 1983) (in Ukrainian).
7. Velyka Khartiia suddiv (Osnovni pryntsypy), (pryiniati Konsultatyvnoiu radoiu yevropeiskykh suddiv na11-mu Plenarnomu zasidanni [Major Charter of Judges (Principal Principles), (adopted by the Advisory Board of European Judges at the 11th Plenary Meeting] (Strasburh, 17–19 lystopada 2010 roku) (in Ukrainian).
8. Rekomendatsii shchodo efektyvnoho vprovadzhennia osnovnykh pryntsypiv nezalezhnosti sudovykh orhaniv [Recommendations on the effective implementation of the basic principles of the independence of the judiciary] (pryiniati rezoliutsiieiu Ekonomichnoi ta Sotsialnoi Rady OON1989/60 ta skhvaleni rezoliutsiieiu Heneralnoi Asamblei OON44/162 vid 15 hrudnia 1989 roku) (in Ukranian).
9. Vysnovok (2001) 1 Konsultatyvnoi rady yevropeiskykh suddiv do uvahy Komitetu Ministriv Rady Yevropy shchodo standartiv nezalezhnosti sudovoi vlady ta nezminiuvanosti suddiv; ta inshi [Conclusion (2001) 1 of the Advisory Council of European Judges to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on standards for the independence of the judiciary and the immutability of judges; and others] (in Ukrainian).
10. Vysnovok Konsultatyvnoi rady yevropeiskykh suddiv № 17 (2014) do uvahy Komitetu ministriv Rady Yevropy pro otsiniuvannia roboty suddiv, yakosti pravosuddia ta povahu do nezalezhnosti sudovoi vlady [Opinion of the Consultative Council of European Judges No. 17 (2014) on the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the evaluation of the work of judges, the quality of justice and respect for the independence of the judiciary] (in Ukrainian).
11. Vysnovok Konsultatyvnoi rady yevropeiskykh suddiv № 1 (2001) do uvahy Komitetu ministriv Rady Yevropy pro standarty nezalezhnosti sudovoi vlady ta nezminiuvanosti suddiv [Opinion of the Advisory Council of European Judges No. 1 (2001) on the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on standards for the independence of the judiciary and the immutability of judges] (in Ukrainian).
12. Kontrolnyi spysok voprosov dlia otsenky sobliudenyia verkhovenstva prava. Evropeiskaia Komyssyia za demokratyiu cherez pravo [Checklist for assessing compliance with the rule of law. European Commission for Democracy through Law] (Venetsyanskaia Komyssyia). Pryniat na 106-m plenarnom zasedanyy. Venetsyia, 11–12 marta 2016 h. data zvernennia 17.12.2018 (in Russian).
13. Kontrolnyi spysok voprosov dlia otsenky sobliudenyia verkhovenstva prava. Evropeiskaia Komyssyia za demokratyiu cherez pravo [Checklist for assessing compliance with the rule of law. European Commission for Democracy through Law] (Venetsyanskaia Komyssyia). Pryniat na 106-m plenarnom zasedanyy. Venetsyia, 11–12 marta 2016 h. data zvernennia 17.12.2018 (in Russian).
14. Rishennia Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy № 19-rp/2004 vid 01 hrudnia 2004 r. u spravi za konstytutsiinym podanniam Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy pro ofitsiine tlumachennia polozhen chastyn pershoi, druhoi statti 126 Konstytutsii Ukrainy ta chastyny druhoi statti 13 Zakonu Ukrainy «Pro status suddiv» [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 19-rp / 2004 dated December 1, 2004 in the case on the constitutional petition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on the official interpretation of the provisions of the first and second paragraphs of Article 126 of the Constitution of Ukraine and part two of Article 13 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Status of Judges»] (sprava pro nezalezhnist suddiv yak skladovu yikhnoho statusu)
15. data zvernennia 17.12.2018 (in Ukrainian).
16. Rishennia Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy № 11-r/2018 vid 04 hrudnia 2018 r. u spravi za konstytutsiinym podanniam Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy shchodo vidpovidnosti Konstytutsii Ukrainy (konstytutsiinosti) polozhen chastyn tretoi, desiatoi statti 133 Zakonu Ukrainy «Pro sudoustrii i status suddiv» u redaktsii Zakonu Ukrainy «Pro zabezpechennia prava na spravedlyvyi sud» [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No. 11-p / 2018 dated December 4, 2018 in the case of the constitutional petition of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on the compliance of the constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) with the provisions of parts three and ten of Article 133 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Judiciary and Status of Judges» in the wording of the Law Of Ukraine «On ensuring the right to a fair trial»] data zvernennia 17.12.2018 (in Ukrainian).
17. Delo «Sandy Taims protyv Soedynennoho Korolevstva» [The case of the Sandy Times v. The United Kingdom]: Reshenye Evropeiskoho suda po pravam cheloveka ot 06.11.1980 h. data zvernennia 17.12.2018 (in Russian).
18. Sprava «Ukrainska Pres-Hrupa proty Ukrainy» [Case «Ukrainian Press Group v Ukraine»]: Rishennia
19. Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny vid 29.03.2005 r. data zvernennia 17.12.2018 (in Ukrainian).
20. Sprava «Sviato-Mykhailivska Parafiia proty Ukrainy» [Case «St. Michael Parish vs. Ukraine»]: Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny vid 14.06.2007 r. data zvernennia 17.12.2018 (in Ukrainian).
21. Slobodin M, ’Hud bai, Fukuiama’ [Goodbye, Fukuyama] data zvernennia 15.12.2018 (in Ukranian).
22. Kvalifikatsiine otsiniuvannia suddiv uperedzhene ta zalezhne vid inshykh hilok vlady – eksperty [udicial qualifications are prejudiced and dependent on other branches of government – experts]. UNIAN.
23. data zvernennia 15.12.2018 (in Ukranian).
24. Khotynska-Nor O Z, ’Pryntsyp rozumnosti strokiv yak nova zasada kryminalnoho provadzhennia’[Principle of the reasonableness of the terms as a new basis for criminal proceedings] (2013) 2 Advokat 11–14 (in Ukranian).
25. Turchyn-Kukarina I, ’Vyznachennia zmistu ta obsiahu tsyvilno-protsesualnoho otsinochnoho poniattia «rozumnyi strok» [Determination of the content and scope of the civil-procedural assessment concept] (2012) 7 Pravo Ukrainy 294–301 (in Ukranian).
26. Kibenko O, ’Kvalifikatsiinyi ispyt vs Kvalifikatsiine otsiniuvannia [Qualification Exam vs. Qualification Assessment] data zvernennia 17.12.2018 (in Ukranian).