-
31.01.19
STATEMENT
On the 30th January 2019, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (hereafter – the Commissionm the HQCJ) illegally neglected to consider conclusions given by the Public Integrity Council concerning the member of High Judicial Council (hereafter – HCJ) Ms. Nataliia Volkovytska and other three judges: Roman Baranvskii, Nadiia Hubenko, Mykola Moisiuk.
In their conclusions, the Public Integrity Council (the PIC) referred to the fact that the acting member of HCJ Ms. Volkovytska covered up the “Maidan judges” who prosecuted peaceful protesters during the Revolution of Dignity and was engaged into the notorious Yemelianov-Tatkov schemes at the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine; other mentioned three judges were not able to explain the origins of their assets, did not declare their property or illegally obstructed peaceful assemblies.
The panel of the HQCJ (consisting of Mr P. Lutsiuk , Ms V. Ustymenko, and Ms. T. Shylova) issued this decision based on its internal regulation (allegedly, the conclusions were provided less than 10 days in advance before the interview with candidates).
The mentioned above actions taken by the Commission evidently violate provisions of the Law that obliges the Commission to consider each conclusion regardless the date of its delivery and does not provide for the possibility to neglect the conclusions.
The introduction of additional obligations concerning the PIC`s decisions and actions by the Commission violates the Law, as it was stated previously by the PIC and by the Supreme Court of Ukraine. However, the Commission refers to the Regulations that are already recognized as those partially inactive, particularly when it comes to obligations concerning the Public Integrity Council`s conclusions.
Actions taken by the Commission also violate the preliminary reached agreements between the parties, in accordance with which the Commission promised not to over-formalize the terms concerning the timelines of the submission of conclusions. In particular, the Commission agreed to still consider the conclusions that were submitted during the night preceding the first of 10 days before the interview.
The Public Integrity Council works in almost 24-hours regime, giving the best of efforts to provide in-time high quality and expert conclusions and complete information about the candidates. The approach of the Commission that starts its work at 9 a.m. and rejects the conclusions submitted by not midnight, but at 1 AM is clearly over-formalized approach that may be viewed as a deliberate attempt to avoid the consideration of the facts concerning the candidates’ integrity. This again undermines the public trust to the procedure of selection of the Supreme Court and the judicial reform in general.
Based on this, we call on the HQCJ to:
- Conduct the interviews with all candidates in the presence of the Public Integrity Council representatives, examinig and taking into consideration all the facts about these candidates and their profiles as stated in the conclusions;
- Hold the plenary meetings (in line with all legal aspects of the procedure and at the presence of the Public Integrity Council representatives) concerning the cases of all candidates who received negative conclusions issued by the Public Integrity Council;
- Take into consideration the conclusions issued by the Public Integrity Council regardless the incoming time, and give candidates additional time to form and express their position following these conclusions if needed;
- Give the preference to a quality-based approach in the process of selection of candidates for the highest judicial instance instead of attempting to finish the selection of the Supreme Court before the Presidential elections by all means.
The Public Integrity Council, with all responsibility before the society, working on solely voluntary basis, continues its efforts to timely and thoroughly examine all the candidates and indicate those who are not capable to meet the ethics and integrity standards to become judges of the highest judicial instance of Ukraine.
Supported and signed by:
Public Integrity Council
Civic Lustration Committee
KrymSOS
Nova Kraina
DEJURE Foundation
Center for Civil Liberties
Centre of Policy and Legal Reform
Explanatory note:
The Law of Ukraine on Judicial System and the Status of Judges indicated the Public Integrity Council as the decision-making body at the judicial instance competitiveness procedures. This institution is to be comprised of representatives of highly recognized civil society organizations. The Public Integrity Council provides the results and conclusion concerning the ethics and integrity status of candidates for the positions of judges upon the availability of relevant facts and preconditions. These conclusions are added to the candidates` profiles/ dossier. In accordance to the Law, if the judges` or candidates` non-compliance to the ethics and integrity standards is indicated by the Public Integrity Council, the Commission will have a right to issue the decision (to be supported by not less than 11 of 16 members of the Commission), therefore, confirming this person`s ability to continue performing the justice at the relevant court.
The means of rejection of conclusions, or its denial are considered being illegal if are issued under any other procedure than the one indicated by the Article 88 of the Law of Ukraine on Judicial System and the Status of Judges, and/or voted at the composition of less than 11 present Commission members.