Kyiv, Ukraine – It’s a quiet room. The people who took the trouble to present themselves are distracted: to shake, whisper or watch their phones. A hoarse drones voice for almost half an hour, reading in a disciplinary case examining the behavior of a judge.
It is the highest judicial surveillance body in Ukraine, the High Council of Justice. Only 15 of the 21 seats reserved for judges are filled. The empty chairs spend a lot about a system in crisis.
The Council, created in its current form in 2016 to reform a judicial power plagued by corruption and ineffectiveness, now vacillates. Decisions are precipitated or delayed, judges accused of false unconsciousness remain on the bench and public confidence fades quickly.
While the Council is supposed to appoint and discipline judges, examine cases of misconduct and authorize the arrests of corrupt officials, increasing pressure and the chronic sub-effective have left the stagnant council. In many cases, procedural bottlenecks and political reluctance have enabled the judges accused of corruption to remain in place.
Pressure courts while vacancies rise
Throughout the country, the judges say they are outdated, many of which pointing out that the Council cannot appoint replacements in a timely.
By the Pecherskyi district court of kyiv, the judges manage up to 30 cases per day – much more than European standards.
“In Europe, 200 minor administrative affairs per year. Here? Two hundred per month, ”explains Judge Vitaliy Salikhov.
One in three judicial sieges in Ukraine remains vacant. In 2024 alone, more than 500 judges retired or resigned, while only 470 were appointed. The deficit consists each year, leaving the remaining judges overwhelmed and exhausted.
Gaps in leadership and missed opportunities
Critics say that the board management is part of the problem. Many consider the Hryhorii Usyk chair as detached and insensitive.
“Uysk only moves when pushed – or when things are on fire,” said a member of the main council who spoke under the cover of anonymity. Even during national events, says the source, the Uysk chair is often empty. “It’s unacceptable.”
Activists of non -profit, which monitors the judiciary of Ukraine, say that Usyk has only made a handful of public appearances since he took office over two years ago. In response, the USYK told Global Press that he had participated in more than 100 events in 2023 and 2024, and that keys had been regularly published in press releases.
The Official Council website tells a different story: of the 41 publicly documented events involving the USYK, only 12 were meetings focused on the concerns of the judges. The others were mainly with international stakeholders such as the Council of Europe or the European Union.
Judge Oleksandr Sasevych, who challenged the USYK for the presidency, said that the disconnection between the council and the judicial power of Ukraine increases.
“People are waiting for us,” he says. “And these visits – direct conversations with the judges and local authorities – could have prevented many of the complaints that we must later examine.”
Tensions with anti-corruption agencies
Some judges also see interference from other government anti-corruption bodies. Several have filed complaints against the National Anti-Corruption Bureau, but these surveys have given results. The member of the Roman council Maselko quotes the case of Ilia Lonskyi, judge of the district court in Odessa who accused the illegal persecution office after a search of his office.
“But it turned out that it was exactly how it was surprised taking a bribes,” said Maselko.
In other cases, the HCJ works with other anti-corruption bodies. In Sumy, a city in northeast of Ukraine, judge Oleksandr Kovtun reported a document ostensibly showing a court decision circulating on Telegram following his decision in a case of driving. The document wore clear signs of counterfeiting – a strange barcode, an incorrect seal and a falsified signature.
Kovtun reported counterfeiting to the prosecutor’s office and the council, warning that such manufacturing undergoes confidence in the courts and reporting that the verdicts can be purchased. A criminal investigation was opened in early June.
Citizens pay the price of legal paralysis
While the Council is wading, the Ukrainians must navigate in an inconsistent and politicized judicial system.
Activist and blogger Oleksandr Novokhatskyi, a former Ukraine security service officer, says he was targeted after criticizing the government on Youtube – a video that attracted hundreds of thousands of views.
Shortly after, the security agents made a descent into his house. He is now faced with accusations of justification of Russian assault – an offense liable to a sentence of up to eight years in prison.
But the deepest concern of Novokhatskyi is the judge affected in his case: Tetiana Ovsepyan, who pronounced sentences against the demonstrators during the Dignity Revolution of Ukraine in 2014.
“If she was heading for activists in 2014, what would prevent her from remaking it, against me?” he said. After all, like these activists, he had openly criticized the government.
Without an urgent reform and stronger leadership, the judicial risks of Ukraine slipped more into a dysfunction. The High Council of Justice, designed to protect judicial responsibility, now seems blocked – unable to fulfill its mandate or restore public confidence.
For Novokhatskyi and millions of Ukrainians, the courts do not offer a path to justice, but a delay and doubt period.