Kyiv, Ukraine – In April 2024, the High Qualification Commission of Judes of Ukraine voted to keep Judge Pavlo Kovalenko. This was despite a recommendation from the Public Integrrity Council, which helps the Commission to determine if a judge is ethically compromised, that Kovalenko was removed from the bench.
Kovalenko, the Council report indicates, could not explain the origins of the vast assets and luxury vehicles in his family. Real estate, says Kovalenko, is funded by his mother, a retired beekeeper and his mother-in-law, who has no known income.
It was not the first time that the Commission has been covering the concerns of the guard dog. It wouldn’t be the last either. Andriy Pasichnyk, chairman of the committee, told Global Press Journal that he could not disclose the motivations of his colleagues so as not to take into account the public integrity council.
After the revolution of dignity 2013-2014, the Ukrainian government established several departments in 2016 to combat corruption in the judiciary. The High Qualification Commission of Judes was initially created in 2010, but later dissolved, to be recreated in 2021. Now he opposed and transmits a list of candidates approved to the High Council of Justice. The inter -ity coucil audience examines the history of candidates for judicial posts to help the committee make the right decisions.
But an examination of the actions of the Commission raises concerns about the ability of the organization – even the will – to act as a credible filter to filter the corrupt candidates for the judge.
Sold -free checks
The judges’ selection system in Ukraine is intentionally on several levels. The inter -COUCIL Public, an independent body of civil society representatives, performs the initial assessment of candidates. If there are facts in the biography of a judge who indicate dishonesty, the Council sends its negative assessment to the High Qualification Commission – which can affect the appointment of a judge during a plenary vote. The final appointments are approved by the High Council of Justice.
Under the law, if the Council issues a negative assessment of a judge, the Commission cannot prevail only with a qualified majority – at least 11 of its 16 members. In theory, this establishes a high bar. But in practice, he did not prevent the commission from advancing judges judged by the Council as a dubious ethics.
Since November 2023, the Public Integrity Council has published 189 negative assessments on 297 assessments completed. More than 100 judges went to the next step despite serious integrity problems.
One of these cases is judge Pavlo Horbasenko, president of the commercial court of the Kyiv Oblast. In November 2024, its wealth and its family business ties in the occupation of Crimea raised red flags. However, after a brief session with a single question of the commissioners, the high qualification committee voted 10 to 4 in favor of keeping it, offering a judicial appointment despite not having enough votes to do so legally.
Check the veterans
Ludmyla Volkova is one of the most influential figures. Former judge and founder of a non -governmental organization of judicial governance, she has always voted to keep judges with questionable history – including those sanctioned to repress the demonstrators during the 2013-2014 dignity revolution. Volkova was also the only commissioner to vote against the granting of the Public Integrity Council full access to the judicial files in June 2024.
Civil society groups underlined the purchase by Volkova in 2019 by a luxury kyiv apartment with a loan of 2.7 million Ukrainian Hryvnia (around US $ 65,000) of a friend – a transaction that she has not yet explained.
Another controversial member of the Commission is Volodymyr Luhanskyi, a judge who claims a doctorate deemed illegitimate by the Ministry of Education of Ukraine. He receives public salary supplements according to his diploma, although the investigators of the anti-corruption action center, a Ukrainian non-governmental organization, were not drawn from dissertation or publications.
Luhanskyi also faced criticism for the closure of dozens of IVROVIST in the IVROVISTS and the fact of not sanctioning counterfeits, but the high qualification committee has not taken any measure against him.
In some cases, a panel of commission including the Volkova judges, Ruslan Sydorovych and Roman Kydysiuk evaluated the judges before the public integrity council could weigh.
“Our members still examine the files of the judges, which contain thousands of pages,” said Anton Zelinskyi, member of the Council. “They still held the audiences.”
A risk system
The High Qualification Commission of Judes was restarted in 2023 through a competitive selection process involving international experts. The new body, for a while, has raised hopes. Civil society groups have praised increased transparency, access to the public integrity council to files and the use of merit -based appointments.
But this momentum is in danger. In June 2025, the international participation of the Commission selection process ended. Future appointments will be offered by, among other entities, the Ukrainian National Bar Association. This association is led by an ally of the pro-Russian politician Viktor Medvedchuk as well as by the Council of Ukraine Judges, which is historically close to the discredited judicial elites.
The issues are high. Ukraine needs a credible judicial system to continue war crimes, attract foreign investments and meet the membership requirements of the European Union. The EU has repeatedly stressed the need for real legal reform.
The independence of the High Qualification Commission also underwent the pressure of state institutions. In March, the State Investigation Office made a descent into the commission offices and the home of Vice-President Oleksi Omelian. He then filed an official complaint, alleging illegal interference in his work.
“This is an attack on the institutional independence of the commission,” Omelian wrote in a statement. “Such actions could derail competitions for critical judicial appointments.”
What comes then
In response to criticism, Pasichnyk, the president of the commission, insists that the body improves. The Commission rationalized its procedures, digitized its tests and increased the awareness of judicial candidates, he says.
However, initiates recognize that challenges remain. Tensions within the High Qualification Commission panels led to an inconsistency in the application of standards. And it was not until 2027 that a new commission panel was created.
“Some commissioners are determined to reform,” explains Mykhailo Zhernakov, head of the Dejure Foundation, a civic organization focused on judicial reform in Ukraine. “But there is a risk of perspective. The next HQCJ composition will be crucial.”