Roman Maselko — formerly a banking lawyer, an active participant in and defender of protesters during the Revolution of Dignity, and later the complainant in a considerable number of disciplinary cases against judges who, in his opinion, engaged in conduct incompatible with their office.
In August 2022, the Verkhovna Rada elected him a member of the main judicial governance body — the High Council of Justice (HCJ), which is responsible, inter alia, for bringing judges to account, dismissing them and issuing recommendations for judicial appointments. At that time, there were already around 400 unresolved complaints filed by him pending before the HCJ. During their review, Maselko recuses himself, and in some cases appeals decisions of the disciplinary chamber — still acting as the complainant.
‘This “switching” is embedded in the legal profession. One day you defend the accused and oppose the prosecution, and tomorrow you represent victims and support the prosecution. Of course, everything must be done in accordance with the law.
Furthermore, the HCJ is a collegial body. I do not review complaints alone. That would be unacceptable. And I have no personal interest in these complaints. As I have repeatedly said, I did this for the public good — to cleanse the judicial system’, he says when asked how he manages to balance these two roles.
In an interview with Watchers, Roman Maselko discusses the need to introduce a public quota in the HCJ, his position on the review of the complaint against Pecherskyi District Court judge Serhii Vovk and the dismissal of former Supreme Court President Vsevolod Kniaziev, the duration of judicial reform, the conflict between members of the third composition of the Public Integrity Council and DEJURE Foundation Head Mykhailo Zhernakov, as well as his plans for the remaining nine months of his mandate.
‘The disciplinary complaint review process has become adversarial’
The HCJ is simultaneously engaged in several parallel procedures — interviews, disciplinary proceedings, judicial appointments and conducting a competition for the position of head of the State Judicial Administration, etc. How does the HCJ prioritise its tasks and cases?
A significant part — around 80% of the HCJ’s work — consists of disciplinary cases. When we resumed the review of disciplinary complaints in November 2023, the backlog exceeded 20,000. At the time the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors was established in December 2024, more than 10,000 complaints remained unresolved and were transferred to the service. On average, 8,000–9,000 new complaints are filed each year. At present, inspectors have examined more than six thousand complaints, while around twelve thousand remain under review.
After the establishment of the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors, the main burden of preparing cases for review was placed on them. However, we (HCJ members — W) still have to work through the materials prepared by disciplinary inspectors, and it is we who make the decisions, so the workload remains substantial.
But the HCJ is not merely a body that reviews complaints against judges. It is a judicial governance body. It effectively manages the judicial system: it decides on strategic issues, allocates funding, responds to statements concerning threats to the authority of justice and so on.
The HCJ plays a major role in judicial appointments. And to return to your question about priorities, we first of all consider submissions on the appointment of judges. We appointed around 500 judges over the past year. For example, we have just received recommendations from the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) regarding the appointment of judges to appellate courts.
Does the number of disciplinary complaints increase each year?
No, it remains roughly at the same level. The only difference is that the number of opened disciplinary proceedings has increased slightly, because in the past complaints were more often rejected or dismissed.
In your view, has the establishment of the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors proved effective? I have seen in some cases that materials are sometimes returned to disciplinary inspectors for revision.
The Service has been operating for less than a year. It is hardly possible to assess the effectiveness of its work in such a short period. But they are showing fairly strong results. I have no doubt that establishing it was the right decision.
Immediately after the competition, HCJ Chair Hryhorii Usyk stated that launching the work of the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors in an effective manner would be very difficult.
Some of the newly appointed inspectors indeed had no prior experience in the judicial system and no background in preparing legal documents. But the quality of the materials prepared was not poor from the very beginning, and it has significantly improved over time.
Moreover, the disciplinary complaint review process itself has become adversarial. Particularly in our Second Disciplinary Chamber, there may be more questions for the inspector than for the judge. In other words, the inspector must defend their conclusion, not merely present it.
If we compare the work of the previous and current composition of the HCJ, it is entirely clear that everything depends on the position of the majority of its members regarding the review of disciplinary complaints, which is very often influenced by the council’s leadership. That is, the previous HCJ composition could not even suspend the judges of the Kyiv District Administrative Court after the scandal involving the leaked recordings from the office of its head, Pavlo Vovk. The current composition has even dismissed Vovk. Clearly, what matters is not only the quality of the complaint file processing but also the will of the HCJ, so to speak.
Decisions are made first by the disciplinary chamber and then by the full HCJ. So, the key points depend on the entire membership of the council. But the current system is organised so that inspectors have considerable independence and freedom. Starting with the fact that they work physically in another building — on Beresteiska. And if we discuss problematic elements of cases, we immediately ask ourselves whether we are infringing on their independence.
We even debated whether we could call them directly to clarify certain information or to express disagreement. And if the chamber disagrees with the inspector’s conclusion, it prepares the draft decision itself. We do not impose our position. Although, of course, it could be assumed that with a certain will or stance it might be possible to influence inspectors’ independence. At present such influence does not exist, and we would not want to see a return to that.
As for the ‘will of the HCJ’, this composition of the council certainly differs significantly from the previous ones, and although not without difficulty, there is at least an understanding that judges who have committed serious disciplinary offences and clearly discredit the judicial system must be dismissed.
Many of the inspectors are now taking part in competitions for judicial posts. Could this be a potential conflict of interest, since they currently have access to judges’ personal data?
There are no legislative restrictions for them, although it is, of course, concerning that we may have to recruit new disciplinary inspectors again if most of them become judges.
I do not see a direct conflict of interest, as their work is not connected with competition procedures, and staff of the HCJ secretariat, judicial assistants and even members of the HCJ themselves also take part in such competitions.
As for members of the HQCJ and the HCJ, and for myself personally, I believe that the participation in such competitions is inappropriate, because it is the HCJ that subsequently appoints the winners, and this may indeed raise doubts in the eyes of an external observer.
Does that mean that you do not want to become a judge?
I will not apply while serving on the HCJ.
And after your term ends?
We’ll see.
On Kniaziev: ‘I believed this person could become a driver of change in the system. But I realised what he was actually doing…’
Before your appointment to the HCJ, you filed a large number of complaints against judges. And now — when these complaints are being examined by the council — you recuse yourself from these cases. Your colleagues are often unhappy about this. Please explain your position.
This is the only correct option in such a situation. Yes, many of my complaints are now before the HCJ, many judges have been held to account on the basis of these complaints, many have been dismissed. It means that they are not frivolous — the rate of complaints being upheld is very high.
Let me remind you that during the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, there was the so-called ‘rubbish bin lustration’, when judges (like officials and politicians) were ambushed and thrown into rubbish bins. After the beatings and arrests of a large number of activists, it became obvious that there was no possibility of obtaining protection in the courts — justice had died. And the question arose: what to do next, because rubbish bin lustration was unacceptable to me. There was a legal path — going to court, filing complaints with the HCJ. And I followed that path — I submitted more than 400 disciplinary complaints against judges.
And now I ask: why did I become an HCJ member? Is it not because, through my work, I demonstrated my commitment to cleansing the judicial system and pursuing judicial reform? Otherwise, I believe I would not have been elected. And I was asked what I would do [when these complaints were considered under my complaints]. I replied: I will declare self-recusal.
I decided that I would not take part in (HCJ — W) hearings as a complainant, but in some cases I do challenge the decisions of disciplinary chambers if I disagree with them. I believe that I am obliged to continue and complete what I started.
So in complaints that you filed, you act as the complainant, and in others — as an HCJ member?
As a complainant — a private individual.
Is it easy for you to ‘switch’ these roles?
This ‘switching’ is embedded in the legal profession. One day you defend the accused and oppose the prosecution, and tomorrow you represent victims and support the prosecution. Of course, everything must be done in accordance with the law.
Furthermore, the HCJ is a collegial body. I do not review complaints alone. That would be unacceptable. And I have no personal interest in these complaints. I repeat, I did this in the public interest — to cleanse the judicial system.
In mid-June this year, you wrote on Facebook that you had been removed from considering a disciplinary complaint against Judge Serhii Vovk of the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv. The case was initiated on a complaint by the Prosecutor General regarding the lifting of the seizure of property worth about one billion Ukrainian hryvnias, with a russian citizen under presidential sanctions being the ultimate beneficiary.
Initially, the rapporteur in the case was Vitalii Salikhov, and after his mandate ended — Olena Kovbii. You also stated that you requested additional materials which could indicate that Judge Vovk’s actions included other disciplinary offences related to this case but not mentioned in the complaint. And you were indeed removed from the case. What happened?
I must be very careful in my comments, as this concerns a chamber decision. But I consider this case to be one of very troubling signals. It was a high-profile case because it involved the seizure of sanctioned assets. And this complaint had been prepared by Oleksii Melnyk (elected as an HCJ member in February 2023 from the prosecutors’ congress, previously head of the Specialised Environmental Prosecutor’s Office of the Prosecutor General’s Office — W), when he was a prosecutor. He could not participate in the chamber meeting, so we had to bring in members from other chambers.
During the review of the complaint, new circumstances emerged which, in my view, indicated significant violations by Judge Serhii Vovk. Therefore, I submitted several requests, obtained additional information, and informed my colleagues that I would seek to open a new disciplinary proceeding. After that, I was removed from the case, although, in my view, there were no grounds for my recusal. And I lost any possibility of influencing this case. In the end, the case was closed.
It was closed?
Yes. The chamber closed it, but a criminal investigation into the lifting of asset seizures is ongoing. According to the case file (and this information is from a publicly available court decision in a court registry), the new owners of the sanctioned property, using connections in governmental authorities, ensured that the seizures were lifted and the property re-registered to other persons. And the key element was the court decision that enabled this. These circumstances needed to be examined, but the opportunity was lost.
Can that chamber’s decision be appealed?
No. The chamber’s decision may be appealed only by the judge or by the complainant if the chamber grants permission. This, incidentally, is a provision that must clearly be amended in legislation. Such permission is granted very rarely, and as far as I recall, in that case (regarding Judge Vovk — W), the chamber did not grant it.
During the chamber’s meeting, Olena Kovbii stated that you had allegedly accused her of ‘profiting from disciplinary cases against Judge Serhii Vovk’. Is that true?
I would prefer to leave that outside this conversation. The discussion she likely refers to took place in the deliberation room, and I cannot talk about it. I can only say that the information was distorted, and I was indeed very surprised by my colleagues’ decision and was trying to find a rational explanation for these actions.
The judicial community, as you have probably noticed, does not welcome excessive publicity, including when someone actively voices their position on social media. You continue to communicate publicly about your work at the HCJ. After the incident with your recusal, HCJ member Serhii Burlakov left a comment under your post, implying that it was unethical to write on social media about what happened during a chamber meeting.
I do not entirely agree with that. It is necessary to be more transparent and explain what is happening and which decisions are being made. But to be honest, I have significantly reduced the number of posts on social media, and I try to write only factual information, as neutrally as possible. I only expressed my position publicly regarding Vovk and Kniaziev, because communication is still necessary.
Colleagues sometimes point out certain comments or posts to me. We often have discussions — very heated ones — especially when Vitalii Salikhov was still in our chamber. Once, we had a discussion with Serhii Yuriiovych Burlakov because, following my requests, I received information about blatant violations in cases concerning the determination of children’s place of residence with the father (such rulings result in postponement from mobilisation for men — W) at the Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Poltava, and I initiated the opening of additional proceedings against judges.
Burlakov then argued that I had no right to do so and that he would issue a separate opinion. I mean that these discussions are often public and very emotional. And I believe this is natural — we exchange views, and colleagues are quite often right.
You mentioned the case of former Supreme Court President Vsevolod Kniaziev. The HCJ dismissed him after a decision by the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv imposing a fine for declaring rent of an apartment at one thousand Ukrainian hryvnias. But the complaint submitted after his arrest on suspicion of receiving a bribe was never reviewed.
Quite often, in cases involving allegations of bribery against judges, the HCJ decides to suspend them from office, and dismissal comes only after the verdict becomes final. Kniaziev’s case may be heard in court for several more years. And he would have retained the status of judge had he not been dismissed.
I was one of those who initiated, and it later became the HCJ’s usual practice, upheld by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, that in egregious cases, such as suspicions of collaboration or unlawful benefits, the HCJ may promptly review complaints and, if there are grounds, dismiss a judge based on the materials of criminal proceedings. It is not necessary to wait for a verdict. Disciplinary proceedings are fully autonomous and do not depend on the outcome of a criminal case.
As soon as information appeared about Kniaziev’s detention, a disciplinary complaint was filed concerning extra-procedural communication with regard to court cases, established by NABU… The HCJ does not establish whether he took a bribe. If he communicated with lawyers or representatives of parties to cases and made promises — judges are dismissed for that.
Thus, the disciplinary complaint regarding these facts against Kniaziev was opened back in December 2023. The rapporteur was Serhii Burlakov. But the case did not move forward and was ultimately closed after Kniaziev’s dismissal on the basis of a different complaint concerning the apartment lease.
Why did it not move forward?
This question should be addressed to the rapporteur. The progress of a case depends entirely on the rapporteur. Only they decide when to schedule it for review. And that is their independence. But there is also a downside — an obviously high-priority case can remain inactive, no one can intervene, and society is left with questions.
After the Pecherskyi District Court issued its decision, a second complaint arrived regarding the apartment lease. And the First Disciplinary Chamber considered it very promptly.
Kniaziev appealed the disciplinary chamber’s decision. And at the HCJ meeting, he brought the original lease agreements with the owner’s signatures showing that she received over UAH 1,000 per month, meaning he paid a fully market rate. It became clear to me that he had not done what he was dismissed for. Therefore, I voted against that decision. Formally, grounds for dismissal existed, as there was a binding Pecherskyi District Court decision establishing a corruption offence. But I believe that it was important for the judicial system to examine the facts established in the criminal proceedings and put a full stop to the matter.
As for Kniaziev himself, I consider him one of the greatest betrayers of our dream — a real transformation of the judiciary for the better. When I spoke with him, he said absolutely the right things. And frankly, I did not see any signs that he was acting differently. I believed he would genuinely support real judicial reform. When I realised what had been happening behind the scenes, it was a shock to me. It felt like a knife in the back, to be honest.
Did you often communicate with Kniaziev?
We did not have close, informal communication. He probably did not see me as someone he could speak to informally. We sometimes talked about the future of the judiciary, about reforms, and he said all the right things. That is why it is a personal tragedy for me. I believed this person could become a driver of change in the system. But I realised what he was actually doing when I saw the case file.
At the same time, since the time of the Maidan, it has been unacceptable for me to punish an innocent person, no matter how unworthy they may be. Yes, the court decision imposing administrative liability entered into force. And I do not know whether he presented that lease agreement to the court or not. But we saw the document here.
After my ‘against’ vote, various Telegram channels spread messages: ‘saved him’, ‘pressed the wrong button’ and so on.
Are such information attacks on you frequent? Has the public pressure increased since you became an HCJ member?
This has already become a normal, everyday situation. Sometimes I even think: ‘Why is no one writing anything? Am I doing nothing if they are not writing?’ I take it as confirmation that I continue to do what hurts those who stand behind these anonymous channels.
Sometimes they take a real fact but completely distort it. For example, regarding a traffic accident I was involved in while riding my bicycle in September 2022. I was slightly distracted and crashed into a taxi that suddenly drove out of an archway. There was minor damage to the car, so we called the police and everything was properly recorded. I fully admitted my guilt, asked the court to consider the case as quickly as possible and immediately paid the fine.
Later, one of the Telegram channels wrote that I was driving a car drunk. And allegedly the US Embassy intervened on my behalf and forced the police to delete that information. Afterwards, an internal security lieutenant colonel of the Ministry of Internal Affairs came to see me at the HCJ, conducting an internal investigation into the same rumour and took a written explanation from me. I asked: ‘Did you question your own officers?’ ‘No, i was told to ask only you’, he replied.
I do not drive a car at all, I do not own a car. And I do not drink alcohol. I decided to write on Facebook to clarify the situation.
Another lawyer constantly calls me a ‘supporter of Hitler’.
Rostyslav Kravets?
Yes. Well, at least he writes under his own name. I support freedom of expression, so I believe everyone may state their own opinions.
Why does he call you that?
If you recall, in March 2020, the Kyiv District Administrative Court upheld Portnov’s request and suspended a Kyiv City Council decision honouring historical Ukrainian figures associated with the Ukrainian People’s Republic, the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, including Vasyl Halasa, Vasyl Sydor, Ulas Samchuk, Yurii Lypa and others — allegedly due to procedural violations.
Regarding Lypa, who at one time was certainly an example of a fighter for independence to me, they claimed that he had allegedly justified fascism (Lypa wrote the essay ‘Ukrainian Age’ in 1936, which mentions the Ukrainian race, Hitler, Mussolini, Atatürk; he also criticises Dontsov in his text — W).
Once, Kravets and I crossed paths in the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court — we often met there. And he said to me something like: why do you justify fascists… And I replied: ‘And what, was Stalin any better?’ This one remark about Stalin then turned into claims that I was ‘a supporter of Hitler’.
Have you considered defending your honour and dignity, your business reputation?
I think that by doing this he (Kravets — W) discredits himself more than me. And besides, that takes time. Right now, I am focused on other matters.
‘Today, no one has influence over the formation of either the HCJ or the HQCJ’
Active judicial reform in Ukraine has been ongoing for more than ten years, although some changes have taken place since independence. How long do you think it may continue?
It is a stereotype that judicial reform is constant. Yes, every government launched its own reform, but the question is: what kind of reform was it, what was its goal, and what did it lead to? In my view, recent reforms were not initiated by the authorities. The Maidan demanded honest judges. Society launched the reform back then.
At that time, I worked in a bank. I was satisfied with everything: high salary, excellent colleagues and international training trips. But when I went to the Maidan and was hit on the head with a baton for nothing, and later in court I tried to defend innocent people and nothing worked, I realised that you cannot live in your own separate world, reality will catch up with you anyway…
The system had to be changed. And the reform after the Maidan differed from all previous ones, when the Government tried to subordinate the courts and judges to itself.
If the procedures introduced as a result of the reform are followed properly, the system will improve. Yes, there are many issues, including staff shortages. But if we go through this path, remove those lacking integrity and recruit new, competent and honest judges, the difference will become obvious.
Some of your colleagues claim that you are interested in a so-called mass purge of the judiciary — the dismissal of a large number of judges. They point to the number of complaints you filed against judges as an indication of this.
That is absolutely untrue. Moreover, the state of the judicial system today is a personal tragedy for me. When I was developing as a lawyer, the judicial profession was for me the pinnacle of a legal career. I have always had deep respect for legal scholars and judges. And I strive for a situation where the judicial office and the status of a judge command respect, great honour and public trust. This can be achieved only by following procedures, acting honestly, fairly and in accordance with the law.
I have always opposed dismissing all judges and appointing new ones. I have great respect for many judges.
When I filed complaints, I sought to remove those who were clearly unfit to serve. They are certainly not the majority. Perhaps there are questions to around 10–20%. The Public Integrity Council’s conclusions account for around 30–35%, although some of those are evidently overstated.
The truth is that every year, with each new wave of reform, the procedures become more complicated and confusing.
Why does it feel as if the reform never ends? it is because none of the reforms has ever been completed. We must complete it in a way that ensures trust in the procedures. Yes, this process is quite uncomfortable even for an honest and conscientious person. Many judges invest significant effort and time in the hearing of cases and then must still pass numerous exams, interviews and might not have the time to prepare properly. But we must go through this and put a full stop.
In this context, I am very surprised by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court’s position on the interviews conducted by the HQCJ for judges who received a negative PIC conclusion before December 2023. It now appears that about 180 such judges should not undergo a special interview before the full membership of the Commission, as required by law (this refers to the decision of the Supreme Court concerning Vitalii Usatyi, a judge of the Commercial Court of Kharkiv Oblast, in respect of whom the PIC issued a negative opinion. Usatyi challenged that procedure. Finally, on 13 June, the Supreme Court invalidated it. The Court held that the procedure should have been completed at the level of a three-member panel of the Commission, without taking the PIC opinion into account — W).
The Grand Chamber insists that the procedure changed in December 2023. In reality, those changes only confirmed that the procedures both before and after the changes remained identical. Such an approach will result in a significant number of judges remaining in office despite serious concerns about their integrity. And then a new government will come and say: look, there are numerous concerns regarding this judge, previous reform failed and we need yet another reform… Such decisions do not support reform and raise concerns not only in Ukrainian society but also among international partners. The European Commission mentioned this ruling in its enlargement progress report and described it as controversial.
I repeat that we must complete all procedures but exactly as they are defined without inventing ways to avoid them. Then the reform will be completed and society will support it.
I would like to see as many people protesting for the independence of judges as those who protested for the independence of the SAPO and NABU if such a threat arises.
Which procedures do you think have proven effective?
I believe the reform has worked in terms of establishing the key judicial governance bodies — the HCJ and the HQCJ. Today, no one has influence over the formation of either the HCJ or the HQCJ. No one can dictate who must be appointed. But the situation remains fragile.
We have not yet passed the point of no return. Previous practices can return very quickly. I believe we need at least one more term of these bodies (HQCJ and HCJ — W) under the current procedures.
All the more so as judicial appointments to the appellate courts of million-plus cities are coming soon, including in Kyiv.
Not only in Kyiv, but also to the newly established specialised administrative courts. And the judges for these courts will most likely be appointed by new HCJ members. The terms of eight council members expire in January 2027. In 2026 — mine and the terms of two HCJ members elected from academia.
If they are elected under different approaches, there is a very high risk of a rollback of the reform. And not because some ‘bad people’ might come in but because our society is still hampered by certain traditions as it were.
On the conflict between members of the third composition of the PIC and DEJURE: ‘The problem that caused this situation lies in different views on funding and the organisation of the PIC Secretariat’s work’
As for the situation around the Public Integrity Council, whose previous composition saw a public conflict with the DEJURE Foundation and its head, Mykhailo Zhernakov. This has left a serious stain on the body’s reputation and unfortunately may be used by certain representatives of the judiciary who oppose public participation in the reform process.
What is your assessment of this situation as a member of the first composition of the PIC and a board member of DEJURE?
First: the Public Integrity Council is an extremely important institution and it has been and will remain needed for a very long time. It should only be somewhat adjusted because right now it largely duplicates the work of the HQCJ. Even if the HQCJ and HCJ operate perfectly, public oversight remains essential. Its functional role will simply change.
Moreover, I believe that when constitutional amendments are introduced — and they will certainly follow after the war — we must seriously raise the issue of a public-representation quota within the HCJ. This reflects both public demand and European standards.
My experience shows that it is important to have different opinions in the HCJ, including those of civil society which is currently one of the key drivers of judicial reform. And who should fill that quota? I believe it is the PIC that could elect such candidates. In other words, our focus now must be on preserving this institution.
As for the situation itself, it is undoubtedly regrettable that it emerged and became public. I believe that civil society consists of people who do not remain silent: they voice problems so that they can be addressed. Therefore, yes, the stain is there and the reputation has suffered, but perhaps this will ultimately benefit the PIC. Although I would have preferred that such a situation had not arisen.
The circulation of lists of candidates for the new PIC composition, which I personally saw before the assembly, resembles similar lists among judges which representatives of the public criticise so strongly too.
In my view, there is nothing wrong with prior discussion of candidates — this is a normal and common practice. But it is entirely unacceptable to persuade others not to elect candidates just because they hold a different opinion… In that respect, I firmly support those who raised this issue.
Regarding the lists — it is unfortunate that members of the third PIC composition withdrew their candidacies before the vote. As a result, we did not see the actual effect of these lists. As I see it, that effect would have been minimal. Could anyone possibly instruct those organisations that were voting — the Ukrainian Bar Association for instance, or Transparency International — whom to vote for? They can discuss and persuade one another, but this is far from the situation where, before a judges’ congress, Mr Lvov (then head of the Commercial Cassation Court within the Supreme Court — W) said: well, take out your pens and write down whom to vote for.
The issue is not only whether those organisations will vote, but the ethics of circulating such lists in principle, including those where certain names are marked with ‘+’ or ‘–’. You know that DEJURE has other projects with some of these organisations, including certain financial arrangements.
In my view, the issue that triggered this situation lies in differing views on how to finance and organise the work of the PIC Secretariat. And, in fact, it is not all so clear-cut. Note that no one has claimed that DEJURE stole money or influenced our conclusions.
The real question was how this process should be organised: whether the PIC should independently arrange and finance its operations or do so through its founding organisations. And this is not a new issue. It has existed since the moment the PIC was created.
Before joining the PIC, I served on the Civil Oversight Council at NABU, and I chaired it for a time. In the early phase, it had a rather powerful function — participation in all detective recruitment processes, with a significant analytical workload. I realised we did not have the capacity for that and suggested setting up a secretariat within the council to hire staff who would actually perform analytical work and prepare materials for council members. But the council lacked the legal status to do this, so we established a separate civil society organisation — essentially a COC Secretariat. It included both former and new council members, and that organisation received grants and hired staff. It was independent of the organisations that had delegated their representatives, and it was supposed to secure its own funding. But the idea proved unsustainable.
The secretariat worked for about three years and then ceased operations because there was no organisation to support this effort. Therefore, the idea of securing funding independently is good in principle, but it does not always work in practice.
When we created the PIC, I suggested applying the same model (at that time, the COC Secretariat still operated), but the idea was rejected and everything was channelled through DEJURE. In the end, there were no other organisations willing to take it on. DEJURE separated this as a specific project and, as a result, the PIC Secretariat and funding appeared.
From my perspective, everything was organised quite well, and there was certainly no interference in the independence of the PIC. But over time, as the PIC composition constantly changes, the situation probably changed and concerns likely re-emerged as to whether this model was effective and whether it affected the PIC’s independence. In my view, these are entirely natural questions which should have been publicly communicated, particularly given the ongoing information attacks on this matter. And here, I believe, lies a major mistake by both Mykhailo Zhernakov and DEJURE — they dismissed such questions as attacks.
I do not know every detail, but it seems the real problem was that instead of responding to absolutely reasonable questions, the reaction was: let us simply not select for the new PIC those who are asking them.
But the PIC has always been a platform for diverse ideas. By the way, I believe that the third composition of the PIC was effective, their decisions were of high quality, and they managed to establish cooperation with the HQCJ and secure access to judicial dossiers. That was truly important, and I appreciate their difficult work.
I am genuinely pleased that the fourth composition of the PIC has started working. However, in light of this situation, they must now demonstrate their independence from DEJURE and anyone else. I believe they are independent, but now they must prove it.
And I believe they must assume greater personal responsibility for their decisions. In particular, they should make public the automatic distribution of judges and candidates to rapporteurs, and disclose the names of those rapporteurs. This is not done now to avoid outside influence — so no one knows who is preparing a particular conclusion, and therefore no one can come and negotiate. But, colleagues, if someone can come and negotiate with you — then what are you doing in the PIC?
Making this information public is precisely about independence and personal accountability. The distribution of candidates must be made public so everyone understands who is responsible. Judges have this — everyone knows who is assigned which case — and this is not a threat to independence, but a necessary guarantee of openness and individual responsibility.
‘Although political influence on the HCJ has now been reduced to zero — I can state that with certainty, but the term of office for council members should be at least six years’
Your term of office expires in August 2026. What are your plans afterwards: returning to the civil society sector, legal practice, perhaps becoming a judge?
To be frank, I am not thinking about that at the moment. I am focused on doing the maximum within the time that remains…
What would you most like to accomplish before the end of your mandate?
First of all, to complete the disciplinary proceedings already under way and to shape case law in this field. We are now developing the practice of how members of the HCJ should respond to particular violations or situations, rather than turning a blind eye. And we already have examples of such responses.
For instance, we recently responded to a judge’s use of a forged document in his case concerning an administrative offence for driving under the influence of alcohol (referring to Judge Dmytro Makharynets of the Rivne District Administrative Court — W). The HCJ decided to refer the matter to the police for the registration of a criminal investigation. If a judge uses a forged document, there must, of course, be a response.
Regarding the situation in Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi (law enforcement officers uncovered a scheme in the court that enabled men of conscription age to avoid mobilisation and leave Ukraine — W) — it was insufficient to dismiss only the judges who handed down those decisions. Half the court was effectively involved in processing those cases. And this had nothing to do with justice. We now have information about the Marinka Raion Court of Donetsk Oblast (its territorial jurisdiction was changed on 3 February this year, with cases transferred to the Apostolove Raion Court of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast — W), where people were simply sending copies of passports and children’s birth certificates via messaging apps — and receiving court rulings in return (concerning a change of a child’s place of residence to avoid mobilisation — W). They did not even file claims!
Therefore, we adopted a decision to analyse the practice concerning such categories of cases across all courts and, based on the results, to propose preventive mechanisms and appropriate systemic responses to such actions. I want us to stop looking away from obvious problems. Although there is a delicate balance here — so as not to overstep and create risks to judicial independence.
In addition, I currently oversee the digitalisation area within the HCJ. I believe that many processes can be optimised both within the HCJ and in the judiciary as a whole. For example, it is often said that courts face excessive workloads — and this is indeed a real issue. But few mention that some courts have very low workloads. How do we improve the situation? Currently, this is addressed by seconding judges from courts with lighter workloads to those with excessive workloads. However, this is a complex and lengthy procedure that requires relocations of judges and constant reallocation of cases, which does not fully resolve the problem and creates others.
Today, many cases are heard via videoconference, and many are examined in written proceedings. In such circumstances, from the claimant’s perspective, what difference does it make whether their case is heard by the Pecherskyi District Court in Kyiv or by a court in Kremenchuk? We can transfer cases to judges, rather than judges to cases. I mean that if a court is overloaded, cases should be allocated where workloads are lighter.
This would resolve many issues — equalising workloads, reducing the duration of proceedings, and decreasing the number of secondments that consume significant time for both the HQCJ and the HCJ. To achieve this, legislative amendments are needed, introducing centralised and extraterritorial automated case allocation based on judges’ workloads. We have already implemented something similar when redistributing cases of the Kyiv District Administrative Court (the court was dissolved by Parliament in December 2022, with almost 20,000 cases pending — W). More than a year after its dissolution, the cases were finally reassigned to other courts and have since been heard.
Will ten months be enough?
Certainly not. The issue of digitalisation is extremely important, yet lengthy and resource-intensive. If we manage to implement the ideas now under consideration regarding the organisation of document flow and the use of all available tools, including artificial intelligence, I believe we could significantly improve and accelerate the handling of cases.
When I first arrived at the HCJ, people would come to me every day saying: ‘Please sign the register’. I asked: ‘What is this?’ They say: ‘It is the email you have received’. In other words, I received an electronic message, but still had to sign to confirm receipt… It took about six months to get rid of that requirement.
The HCJ receives dozens of electronic letters each day. They are printed out, scanned and then uploaded into the system again. ‘We must put a stamp on it!’, I was told. When I suggested using a digital stamp, they replied that it was not permitted.
In 90% of complaints submitted to us, we either refuse to open proceedings or dismiss them. Yet each complaint is printed, compiled, signed, and placed in the archive. Why not handle these entirely in electronic form? All of this must indeed be changed. And there is a great deal of such unnecessary work.
And it is embarrassing to admit, but the HCJ still prepares and signs its decisions solely on paper. When HCJ members need to sign a decision, assistants go searching for them across the building — running up and down floors, waiting outside doors to get their signatures. Courts have long been signing their decisions with digital signatures, whereas in the HCJ only the Second Disciplinary Chamber does so. It is a disgrace. We need change.
However, such change requires a strong team of IT professionals in the HCJ Secretariat, capable of ensuring a high and sustainable level of digitalisation not only within the HCJ, but across the judiciary as a whole. I have long advocated for the introduction of a Deputy Head of the Secretariat for Digitalisation, yet the Chair of the HCJ continues to reject the proposal, citing a lack of funding, while we continue funding inefficient procedures…
Is four years of office not too short for a member of the HCJ to complete all procedures and bring their initiatives to fruition? Especially considering that the council did not operate for almost a year, and its disciplinary complaint handling function was suspended from August 2021 to November 2023.
In my view, yes — this is too short a period. Particularly given that the HCJ did not operate during the first five months at all. Then, the disciplinary function remained inactive for another year. We were actually unable to perform our key functions. Afterwards, it took time to re-establish and relaunch all the procedures.
If we are speaking about the independence of the judiciary, then the term of office of its principal governance body must be longer, or at least must not be dependent upon the bodies responsible for appointing its members, namely the Verkhovna Rada and the President. Therefore, the term of office of the HCJ should slightly exceed theirs.
And although political influence on the HCJ has now been reduced to zero — I can state that with certainty, but the term of office for council members should be at least six years, in light of the scope of the tasks before us. Particularly given that members are subject to restrictions on being reappointed.
