-
29.11.17
The Public Integrity Council was set up to ensure that the voice of the public is finally heard in the selection of judges. It was intended to become one of the most important guarantors of the achievement of the main objective of the judicial reform, that is to obtain a fair trial in which the public can trust.
The Public Integrity Council has repeatedly drawn Your attention to the fact that every fourth of the competition winners does not meet the criteria of integrity and professional ethics, as evidenced by the concrete facts described in our conclusions.
We are extremely concerned that the judges who banned peaceful assemblies during the time of the Maidan, gravely violated fundamental human rights (which was established by the European Court of Human Rights), provided false information in declarations of integrity, could not explain the origin of their assets which obviously mismatch their revenues, delivered politically motivated decisions, facilitated the evasion of liability of the “Maidan judges”, etc.
This is not just our position. Relatives of the Heroes of Heavenly Hundreds were also shocked by this result and addressed You with an open call to avoid that their sacrifices become meaningless and to guarantee the compliance of the appointed judges with the Constitution and to fulfill the requirements of the Maidan.
Such result clearly does not correspond to the goal of the reform and invalidates all its positive achievements.
We were ready to meet to explain the position of the public and to suggest ways of improving the procedure. This could have helped achieving the result demanded by society. We also urged You not to issue a Decree on the appointment of judges until the process of challenging the outcome of the competition, currently ongoing in the Supreme Court of Ukraine, is complete.
Much to our disappointment, all our calls were ignored.
Instead, You signed a Decree appointing 113 winners of the contest to the new Supreme Court, and on November, 11, at the premises of the Supreme Court of Ukraine participated in the solemn taking of the oath by the judges of the new Supreme Court. The secrecy in which this ceremony was organized suggests that the organizers were afraid of the public’s reaction to this event, and, therefore, they were aware of the low public confidence in the results of the competition.
However, in Your speech You stated that the selection process has «fully taken into account the position of the public assisting with the selection.» You also once again mentioned the importance of “the price paid by Ukraine for an independent and fair trial”. And this is what You stated upon the signing of the Decree appointing a judge who banned the Maidan or a judge whose actions the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine is currently investigating, while the National Agency on Prevention of Corruption has found grounds to fully verify declaration of the said judge.
We categorically disagree with the statement that the public’s position was “fully taken into account”. Moreover, the society still has not been provided with a satisfactory explanation of the reasons why the conclusions on non-compliance of the candidates with the criteria of integrity were rejected. The real reasons for rejecting the conclusions in the decisions of the High Qualifications Commission of Judges of Ukraine are hidden, and those that have been made public are not convincing and lead to discontent. We have a lasting impression that we were used to legitimize the desired result in the public eye.
Therefore, we consider the result of the the Supreme Court competition unfair and incompatible with the expectations of society regarding the purification and renewal of the judiciary.
We would like to draw Your attention to the fact that, with such a start of the reform and such integrity standards already established by the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine and the High Council of Justice, the further qualification assessment of the current judges is meaningless. With such standards, dismissal of a judge due to his/her the non-compliance with the criterion of integrity would require a court verdict.
Considering the above, we demand to stop misleading the public through public speeches by saying that the public opinion was fully considered.
At the same time, we continue to struggle for the implementation of the ideas of the judicial reform, and therefore are ready to offer You changes initiating which might prevent such results in the future and provide a chance to restore trust in the court.