-
20.07.17
Maryna SOLOVYOVA, member of the PIC and chair of the NGO “Initiative for St. Andrew’s Passage” said that during the plenary meetings the HQCJ overruled almost two thirds of opinions of the Public Integrity Council: “Twenty six candidates were banned from the competition on the basis of PIC’s opinions. At the same time, the HQCJ has ignored the information about 76 candidates, having overruled the opinions of the PIC.” Another eight candidates have voluntarily withdrawn from the competition, which means that their compliance with the criteria of integrity and professional ethics will not be assessed.
According to the regulations on qualification assessment, the HQCJ suspends a candidate’s further participation in the competition if at least one case of dishonest behavior has been identified. However, the HQCJ has overruled a lot of PIC’s opinions which presented specific facts proving that this or that candidate violated anticorruption criteria or demonstrated unethical behavior. “Thus, the HQCJ thinks that privatization of official housing when there is enough money to buy a property of one’s own, false information in the declarations of virtue or violations of human rights confirmed by the ECHR rulings are not examples of unscrupulous behavior,” said Yevhenia MOTOREVSKA, member of the PIC and journalist of the “Investigation. Info” program”. By adopting such decisions, the HQCJ creates a very dangerous precedent, as it sends a message to all judges and candidates that such behavior is acceptable.”
In addition to its opinions, the PIC has also provided the HQCJ with well-grounded negative reports about more than 100 candidates. Therefore, there is a risk that unscrupulous candidates might be shortlisted. According to Mykhailo ZHERNAKOV, member of the PIC, director of the DeJuRe Foundation, and RPR expert, if there are too few candidates, it would be logical to appoint not 120 judges at once, but a minimum of 65, as required by law. By the way, the members of the HQCJ themselves have spoken about this possibility right from the start. “The problem is that the HQCJ mostly consists of the judges representing the old system and elected by their peers. There is no sense to expect progressive rulings from them. Judges can be entrusted with governance only when people are ready to go out on the street to support them, like it is happening in Poland. Otherwise we should look for some other models,” stressed Zhernakov.
It is the High Council of Justice that shall finally decide who will be appointed to the Supreme Court. However, there are already serious doubts as to the impartiality and objectivity of this body. “Three candidates to the Supreme Court (Ya. Romaniuk, A. Lesko, and A. Oliynyk) are members of the HCJ,” says Roman MASELKO, member of the PIC and activist of the NGO “Avtomaidan”. “They obviously have no right to participate in the HCJ decision-making on the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. Thus, we expect that they will refuse to accept their nomination.” Maselko also drew attention to the fact that the HCJ has not met the public expectations concerning the punishment of judges who abused their powers during the Revolution of Dignity to persecute protesters: “There are more than 330 judges, but it is only 51 judges that are recommended to be dismissed. Most of them managed to evade punishment. Among them – B. Sanin, Ye. Ablov, V. Deviatko, V. Kytsiuk and dozens of others who still wear judge’s robes and kill trust in the judiciary. It shows that there is a serious risk that the High Council of Justice might recruit dishonest judges to the Supreme Court, unless the public closely monitors the process of recruitment.”
Co-coordinator of the PIC Vitaliy TYTYCH drew attention to the provisions of Part 19 of Article 79 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”, whereby the High Council of Justice can refuse to recommend that the President of Ukraine should appoint this or that judge if there is a reasonable doubt that this candidate meets the criteria of integrity or professional ethics or there are any other circumstances that might negatively affect public trust in the judiciary if this person is appointed to office. “The task of the HQCJ was to assess the candidates in all the aspects, taking into account their professional competence, while the HCJ is dealing only with the criteria of integrity and professional ethics,” says TYTYCH. “That is why the Public Integrity Council – as a body which is also legally empowered to assess whether the candidates meet the criteria of integrity and professional ethics – is going to take part in the meetings of the HCJ and explain its members why certain Supreme Court candidates do not meet these criteria.”
In general, 76 candidates out of 134 who received negative opinions of the PIC continue to participate in the competition. Please follow this link to read the opinions and learn more.