Judicial Reform in Ukraine Meeting European Standards
У статті розглядається структура співпраці між ЄСі Україною та оцінюється ступінь реформованості судової системи Украї;ни відповідно до європейських стандартів, відображених експертними висновками Венеціанської комісії. Автор робить висновок про те, що реформи, зокрема судова реформа, уповільнюються...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Часопис Київського університету права |
|---|---|
| Date: | 2009 |
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Інститут держави і права ім. В.М. Корецького НАН України
2009
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/22962 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Journal Title: | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| Cite this: | Judicial Reform in Ukraine Meeting European Standards / A.I. Pottakis // Часопис Київського університету права. — 2009. — № 4. — С. 351-355. — Бібліогр.: 17 назв. — англ. |
Institution
Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine| _version_ | 1859585385725689856 |
|---|---|
| author | Pottakis, A.I. |
| author_facet | Pottakis, A.I. |
| citation_txt | Judicial Reform in Ukraine Meeting European Standards / A.I. Pottakis // Часопис Київського університету права. — 2009. — № 4. — С. 351-355. — Бібліогр.: 17 назв. — англ. |
| collection | DSpace DC |
| container_title | Часопис Київського університету права |
| description | У статті розглядається структура співпраці між ЄСі Україною та оцінюється ступінь реформованості судової системи Украї;ни відповідно до європейських стандартів, відображених експертними висновками Венеціанської комісії. Автор робить висновок про те, що реформи, зокрема судова реформа, уповільнюються через нестабільність місцевого політичного середовища впродовж останніх років. Автор також вважає зняття внутрішньої напруги та суперечностей передумовою запровадження та ефективного впровадження реформи судочинства відповідно до європейських стандартів, яке б підвищило незалежність і неупередженість суддів з одного боку, й ефективність системи відправлення правосуддя, - з іншого. Ключові слова: судова реформа в Україні, співпраця між ЄС та Україною, політична стабільність.
The article reviews the framework of cooperation between the EU and Ukraine and assesses the extent to which the judicial system of Ukraine is being reformed in line with European standards based on opinions of the Venice Commission. The author concludes that the reforms, in particular judicial reform, have been halted by the instability of the domestic political environment over past few years. The author views resolving the internal tensions and divisions as the precondition for introducing, vigorously and emphatically, reforms of the judiciary, in line with European standards, that would enhance the independence and impartiality of judges on the one hand, and the efficiency of the system of administering justice on the other. Key words: judicial reform in Ukraine, EU-Ukraine cooperation, political stability.
|
| first_indexed | 2025-11-27T09:51:44Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
ANDREAS I. POTTAKIS
Andreas I. Pottakis, Deputy Director of theAcademy of European Public LawJUDICIAL REFORM IN UKRAINE MEETING EUROPEAN STANDARDS
INTRODUCTIONIn the era of ever increasing importance of the diplomacy of energy resources and its man-agement, Ukraine assumes a central role in the region, and a prominent position in the geopo-litical strategic goals of the EU1.Following the last enlargement of the EU in 2004, the Union and Ukraine now �and forthe first time- share a common border. As direct neighbours, they face common challenges2.This is an additional impetus for enhancing cooperation, most notably through the approxi-mation of institutional and legislative frameworks.The present contribution reviews the framework of cooperation between EU-Ukraine, andassesses the extent to which the judicial system of Ukraine is being reformed in line withEuropean standards.
I. FRAMEWORK OF COOPERATIONThe depth and breadth of EU-Ukrainian cooperation is indeed enormous. One quickbrowse on the main chapters of the EU-Ukraine Action Plan gives an impressive overview ofthe scope of areas of cooperation between EU and Ukraine, spanning from political institution-building and reforming with a view to consolidating democratic values, to legal reform(including reform of the judiciary), with a view to approximating the EU standards, and eco-nomic reform (incorporating trade, competition, anti-fraud and anti-corruption mechanisms,taxation and public procurement etc), with a view to establishing an open market system anda free trade agreement.Since 2007, the EU and Ukraine are in negotiations on a new agreement3 that replaces theformer Partnership Cooperation Agreement (PCA) 4. While there may be specific areas andchapters of negotiation not yet completely closed and agreed on in every detail, there is a com-mon accord that this new agreement will have the format of an Association Agreement5,involving reciprocal rights and obligations, and the adoption of binding decisions, i.e. quasi-legislative inter-national instruments. The depth of such an agreement is highlighted by thenegotiations on a comprehensive free trade area that form part of the overall association agree-ment. Such a free trade agreement has become a significantly more reachable goal sinceUkraine joined the WTO in 2008.Cooperation between the EU and Ukraine in the field of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)is already considerably advanced. It forms integral part of the overall partnership frameworkset by the EU, as further elaborated in the EU-Ukraine Action Plan6. Ever since 2001, the EUAction Plan on JHA in Ukraine covered a wide range of areas, among which border manage-ment and visa control, asylum and migration, terrorism, judiciary reform, rule of law and goodgovernance, democratic reforms and human rights� protection. Among the main challengesand strategic objectives for this cooperation, the following are directly linked to the overallreform of the judicial system:� cooperation in the field of freedom, security and justice;� support efforts to consolidate democratic values and institutions, comprehensive protec-tion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, efficient and democratically accountable stateinstitutions and policy-making instruments;
Andreas I. Pottakis. Judicial reform in Ukraine meeting european standards
351×àñîïèñ Êè¿âñüêîãî óí³âåðñèòåòó ïðàâà � 2009/4© Andreas I. Pottakis
� judicial reforms, especially with a view to strengthening individual and institutionalindependence and impartiality of the judiciary, updating provisions on access to the judicialsystem, modernizing the administration of the judiciary.Cooperation in the filed of freedom and security has direct implications and impact on thereforms introduced in the judiciary. Migration flow management, asylum standards and pro-cessing procedures, as well as a concerted approach and confrontation of drugs, human traf-ficking, corruption, money laundering etc provoke an approximation of institutional designand procedures not only of the administration or law enforcement, but also of legislation andthe judiciary. E.g., the imposition of appropriate judicial control over all decisions of detentionlonger than 3 days (72 hours) is one of the priorities of the cooperation in the field of illegalmigration control, directly relating to the protection of the rule of law, and the reform of theUkrainian judicial system; similarly, the approximation of the Ukrainian legislation and judi-cial proceedings in the field refugees and asylum seekers is at the center of the EU objectivesin the field of asylum; even the establishment of common programmes for the training ofjudges and prosecutors in financial motoring and in investigating money laundering activitiespresent challenges to the Ukrainian judicial system.The basic objectives of the EU action plan in the area of justice involve reforms of thejudiciary, and the strengthening of the judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters,including the penitentiary system.On the reform of the judiciary, the following objectives take center stage:� encouraging Ukraine�s efforts to ensure impartiality, independence and competence ofjudges; to this end, the EU has put forward and monitors the implementation of the strategy onjudicial reform entitled �Concept for the improvement of the judiciary in order to ensure fairtrial in Ukraine in line with European standards�,� reviewing the appointment system for the Constitutional Court in line with the recom-mendations of the Council of Europe�s Venice Commission7,� supporting Ukraine�s efforts to establish a branch of administrative courts,� reviewing and introducing the reforms needed in the civil, criminal, and administrativecodes and codes f procedure, to meet European standards,� increasing the capacity of the court system to deal with its workload and strengthen itsadministrative capacity,� improving access to justice and establishing a proper legal aim system,� introducing special training for judges and candidate judges; improving the recruitmentsystem and career of judges, based on European standards with a view to strengthening theirindependence, impartiality and efficiency; offering support for the drafting and application ofa Judicial Code of Ethics; establishing independent bodies to handle disciplinary proceedingsfor judges,� reviewing and reforming the prosecution system in accordance with the relevant Councilof Europe Action Plan,� supporting transparency and access to justice through the creation and operation of elec-tronic databases of all court decisions,� supporting in the establishment of a single and independent professional bar association,� enhancing and systematizing the training of judges and prosecutors on the protection ofhuman rights in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights, and most recent-ly, the EU Charter,� reducing the number of court cases going to appeal, and ultimately being annulled byhigher courts8,� developing out-of-court systems to speed up and cut costs of small civil cases (alterna-tive dispute resolution instruments and procedures)9.In the field of judicial cooperation on criminal matters, the following objectives are highon the agenda:� adopting the amended Penal Procedural Code of Ukraine, and developing the necessarylegislative and institutional measures to promote judicial cooperation with other countries,� ratifying important international instruments on judicial cooperation in criminal mat-ters10,352
Ïðàâîâà ñèñòåìà Óêðà¿íè é ì³æíàðîäíå ïðàâî, ïîð³âíÿëüíå ïðàâîçíàâñòâî
� establishing a network of contact points for a rapid exchange of information on mutuallegal assistance and judicial cooperation related to cross-border offences,� concluding the cooperation between Eurojust and Ukraine�s General Prosecutor�sOffice.,� fully implementing juvenile justice standards in line with relevant European standards.Lastly, in the field of judicial cooperation on civil matters, the following are among the toppriorities of the EU-Ukraine concerted action plan on judicial reform:� fully implementing the Hague Convention on the taking of evidence of 1970 and onservice of documents of 1965, with a view to promoting the practical functioning of legalassistance in civil matters,� enhancing the framework of children rights protection, by adhering to international con-ventions on parental responsibility, adoptions, enforcement of alimonies, last wills and testa-ments, inheritances, abductions.
II. ASSESSING PROGRESSIn assessing the progress made in the last few years, one has to always take into consider-ation the general political climate of the country, in which reforms must go through. It is a factthat Ukraine has undergone through a prolonged period of -relative to extreme- political insta-bility. It would not be inaccurate to place the origins of this instability in 2004 and the �orangerevolution�. Since then, Ukraine has undergone a critical period of political and social unrestbefore and after the 2006 and 2007 elections, that was further exacerbated more recently, dur-ing the energy crisis and the events in Georgia, that placed the Ukrainian government directlyin conflict with Russia.In such a political environment, it is no surprise that no significant progress was made inthe field of judicial reform. Key reforms did not meet with the necessary political support tobe further promoted. A prime example is the failure to make any substantial progress on thereform of the Constitution. Further, the independence of the judiciary was compromised inautumn 2008 when judges were drawn into a dispute between the President and the PrimeMinister regarding the President�s decision to call pre-term elections, causing a halt to reformsof the judiciary.More progress has been achieved in the reform of the criminal justice system. The Cabinetissued an instruction in 2008 �On Approval of the Action Plan for the Implementation of theConcept of Criminal Justice Reform�. The instruction aims at improving pre-trial investigationprocedures, strengthening the protection of victims� rights, improving the conditions and pro-cedures for punishment and addressing corruption in the judicial process.In addition, in 2008 a �Concept on the Reform of the Office of Prosecutor� was intro-duced, to bring the role of the General Prosecutor in line with the recommendations of theCouncil of Europe Venice Commission. Significant development in this respect in 2008 wasthe adoption of a law by Ukrainian Parliament �on amendments to the law of Ukraine on theProcuracy�11, which brought the existing law into line with the Constitution by requiring theconsent of Parliament to the dismissal of the General Prosecutor. However, the opinion of theVenice Commission at its 79th Plenary Session on 12 to 13 June 2009 on the draft piece of leg-islation has not been overwhelmingly positive12. On the contrary, the Commission notes that �the present draft, which is not supported either by the Minister of Justice or the President,does not intend to reform the present functioning of the prosecution service in Ukraine whichwas inherited from the Soviet �prokuratura� system. It is rather an attempt to preserve the sta-tus quo and to put an end to reform efforts undertaken on the basis of the 1996 Constitution ofUkraine�[t]he prosecutor�s office would remain a very powerful and excessively centralisedinstitution whose functions considerably exceed the scope of functions performed by a prose-cutor in a democratic country. The draft does not bring Ukraine any closer to complying withthe commitment towards the Council of Europe�The Commission concluded that �a comprehensive reform in line with the country�s com-mitment to the Council of Europe would require, first of all, constitutional amendments�.
Andreas I. Pottakis. Judicial reform in Ukraine meeting european standards
353×àñîïèñ Êè¿âñüêîãî óí³âåðñèòåòó ïðàâà � 2009/4
Contrary to its severe criticism on the proposed draft law on the prosecutor�s office, theCommission found that the amendments of the Constitution, as proposed by the UkrainianPresident, concerning the judicial system on the whole, and the Constitutional Court ofUkraine in particular, mark �a clear improvement with respect to the present Constitution�.The Venice Commission had expressed its opinion on the judicial system of Ukraine severaltimes in the past13. The Commission in particular does not find that having judges elected bythe public serves to strengthen their independence. In addition, the Commission has expressedthe opinion that it is not appropriate that Parliament should have any role in lifting a judge�simmunity14, nor in appointing them, whether at high or lower courts. Further, the Commissionfavours the establishment one category of judges, appointed for permanent terms, to better pro-tect their independence15, and stands critical before provisions that allow for the dismissal ofa judge for breach of his/her oath, as �[t]his provision might be (mis)used to get rid of judgesas the provisions used in the oath will necessarily be very vague�.With respect to the administration of justice, the Commission welcomes the new, revisedcomposition of the High Council of Justice, proposed by the draft Constitution16, as well as itsrevised role and competences17.On the composition of the Constitutional Court, the Commission reiterates its previousrecommendations, noting that little progress is made in the draft Constitution presented by thePresident of Ukraine:�Under the Constitution in force constitutional judges are recruited through three differ-ent channels: the President of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and the Congress ofJudges of Ukraine each appoint six judges to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Accordingto the draft the judges of the Constitutional Court would be appointed on the submission of thePresident of Ukraine by a two-thirds majority of the total membership of the VerkhovnaRada�the Venice Commission welcomed the shift from the system of exclusive direct appoint-ment of constitutional judges by the President to the mixed system providing for the electionor appointment by the three main branches of power because this system has more democrat-ic legitimacy. A contrario, abandoning this system and moving to a combination of nomina-tion of candidates by the President and their election by parliament is not welcome, althoughthe proposed solution as such is acceptable and known in other countries. Moreover, in thepresent situation in Ukraine the proposed system could easily lead to deadlocks and themonopoly of presenting proposals gives an extremely strong role to the President.�CONCLUSIONSUkraine commands strategic geopolitical importance for the EU. It is situated at the cross-roads of energy supply for Europe, bordering the Federation of Russia. The prospect of an EU-Ukraine free trade area, that became more realistic and feasibleafter Ukraine�s accession to the WTO, requires major changes in the institutional structure ofthe judiciary. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe has been largely charged withmonitoring progress on the subject matter.The reforms, however, that are placed on the agenda of the Commission could only beadvanced within a stable domestic political environment, that has been missing from the coun-try in the part few years. Resolving its internal tensions and divisions will allow Ukraine toconcentrate on introducing, vigorously and emphatically, reforms of the judiciary, in line withEuropean standards, that would enhance the independence and impartiality of judges on theone hand, and the efficiency of the system of administering justice on the other.
1 Ukraine is a key energy partner of the European Union, notably in the gas sector where some 80% ofEU imports of Russian gas transit through Ukraine�s gas pipeline system. Relations with Ukraine in the ener-gy field were tested in January 2009 following a commercial dispute between the Russian Federation andUkraine concerning gas. As a result of this dispute there was a temporary cut of Russian transit supplies toEurope via Ukraine resulting in emergency situations in several EU Member States and some neighbouringstates. The European Commission facilitated the resolution of the gas crisis, inter alia, by the dispatch of ateam to Russia and Ukraine to monitor gas transit flows.354
Ïðàâîâà ñèñòåìà Óêðà¿íè é ì³æíàðîäíå ïðàâî, ïîð³âíÿëüíå ïðàâîçíàâñòâî
2 Especially in the fields of the fight against organised crime, terrorism, illegal migration etc.3 The �New Practical Instrument�.4 Partnership Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between EU-Ukraine of June 1994, in force since 1 March1998. EC Decision 149/98, Council and Commission Decision of 26 January 1998 on the conclusion of thePartnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, of theone part, and Ukraine, of the other part, OJ L 049/19.02.98.5 A title finally adopted at the September 2008 Paris EU-Ukraine Summit.6 Initially elaborated and put forth in December 2001, and substantially amended and extended to endorsea wider scope of cooperation areas by the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Council on 21 February 2005.7 www.venice.coe.int. 8 As stipulated in the National Indicative Programme 2007-2010 for Ukraine of the EuropeanNeighbourhood & Partnership Instrument.9 Ibid.10 Like the 2nd Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, the RomeStatute of the International Criminal Court, the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the InternationalCriminal Court.11 CDL (2009) 085.12 http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2009/CDL-AD(2009)048-e.asp. 13 Most notably on the draft �Law on the Judiciary� and the draft �Law on the Status of Judges inUkraine�, CDL-AD (2007) 003.14 In art. 139 of the draft Constitution, the requirement of the consent of the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament)is replaced by the consent of the newly established Senate. This does not remove the concerns previouslyexpressed by the Commission.15 The current Constitution provides two categories of judges, those appointed for a period of time (nom-inated for the first time) and judges appointed for an unlimited period of time. The new draft, in art. 141,replaces the provision of Art. 126 and provides for only one category of judges appointed for permanent terms.16 The Council would consist of sixteen members, with the Congress of Judges appointing eight mem-bers and the President and the Senate appointing four members each.17 The HCJ: 1. forwarding submission on the appointment of judges to the office; 2. forwarding submis-sion on the dismissal of judges from the office in cases stipulated by the part one of Art. 143 of theConstitution; 3. terminate the authority of judges in the cases stipulated by the part two of art. 143 of theConstitution(age 65, and death ); 4. takes a decision on suspension of the judges in the cases stipulated by partthree of art. 143 (in the case of the prosecution of a crime or to correct violations of the requirements forincompatibility); 5. decides to bring the judges to disciplinary liability.
Ðåçþìå
Ó ñòàòò³ ðîçãëÿäàºòüñÿ ñòðóêòóðà ñï³âïðàö³ ì³æ ªÑ ³ Óêðà¿íîþ òà îö³íþºòüñÿ ñòóï³íü ðåôîðìîâà-íîñò³ ñóäîâî¿ ñèñòåìè Óêðà¿íè â³äïîâ³äíî äî ºâðîïåéñüêèõ ñòàíäàðò³â, â³äîáðàæåíèõ åêñïåðòíèìè âèñ-íîâêàìè Âåíåö³àíñüêî¿ êîì³ñ³¿. Àâòîð ðîáèòü âèñíîâîê ïðî òå, ùî ðåôîðìè, çîêðåìà ñóäîâà ðåôîðìà,óïîâ³ëüíþþòüñÿ ÷åðåç íåñòàá³ëüí³ñòü ì³ñöåâîãî ïîë³òè÷íîãî ñåðåäîâèùà âïðîäîâæ îñòàíí³õ ðîê³â.Àâòîð òàêîæ ââàæຠçíÿòòÿ âíóòð³øíüî¿ íàïðóãè òà ñóïåðå÷íîñòåé ïåðåäóìîâîþ çàïðîâàäæåííÿ òàåôåêòèâíîãî âïðîâàäæåííÿ ðåôîðìè ñóäî÷èíñòâà â³äïîâ³äíî äî ºâðîïåéñüêèõ ñòàíäàðò³â, ÿêå á ï³äâè-ùèëî íåçàëåæí³ñòü ³ íåóïåðåäæåí³ñòü ñóää³â ç îäíîãî áîêó, é åôåêòèâí³ñòü ñèñòåìè â³äïðàâëåííÿ ïðà-âîñóääÿ, � ç ³íøîãî.Êëþ÷îâ³ ñëîâà: ñóäîâà ðåôîðìà â Óêðà¿í³, ñï³âïðàöÿ ì³æ ªÑ òà Óêðà¿íîþ, ïîë³òè÷íà ñòàá³ëüí³ñòü.
Summary
The article reviews the framework of cooperation between the EU and Ukraine and assesses the extent towhich the judicial system of Ukraine is being reformed in line with European standards based on opinions ofthe Venice Commission. The author concludes that the reforms, in particular judicial reform, have been hal-ted by the instability of the domestic political environment over past few years. The author views resolvingthe internal tensions and divisions as the precondition for introducing, vigorously and emphatically, reformsof the judiciary, in line with European standards, that would enhance the independence and impartiality ofjudges on the one hand, and the efficiency of the system of administering justice on the other.Key words: judicial reform in Ukraine, EU-Ukraine cooperation, political stability.
Andreas I. Pottakis. Judicial reform in Ukraine meeting european standards
355×àñîïèñ Êè¿âñüêîãî óí³âåðñèòåòó ïðàâà � 2009/4
|
| id | nasplib_isofts_kiev_ua-123456789-22962 |
| institution | Digital Library of Periodicals of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine |
| issn | XXXX-0074 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-27T09:51:44Z |
| publishDate | 2009 |
| publisher | Інститут держави і права ім. В.М. Корецького НАН України |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | Pottakis, A.I. 2011-07-01T22:51:20Z 2011-07-01T22:51:20Z 2009 Judicial Reform in Ukraine Meeting European Standards / A.I. Pottakis // Часопис Київського університету права. — 2009. — № 4. — С. 351-355. — Бібліогр.: 17 назв. — англ. XXXX-0074 https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/22962 У статті розглядається структура співпраці між ЄСі Україною та оцінюється ступінь реформованості судової системи Украї;ни відповідно до європейських стандартів, відображених експертними висновками Венеціанської комісії. Автор робить висновок про те, що реформи, зокрема судова реформа, уповільнюються через нестабільність місцевого політичного середовища впродовж останніх років. Автор також вважає зняття внутрішньої напруги та суперечностей передумовою запровадження та ефективного впровадження реформи судочинства відповідно до європейських стандартів, яке б підвищило незалежність і неупередженість суддів з одного боку, й ефективність системи відправлення правосуддя, - з іншого. Ключові слова: судова реформа в Україні, співпраця між ЄС та Україною, політична стабільність. The article reviews the framework of cooperation between the EU and Ukraine and assesses the extent to which the judicial system of Ukraine is being reformed in line with European standards based on opinions of the Venice Commission. The author concludes that the reforms, in particular judicial reform, have been halted by the instability of the domestic political environment over past few years. The author views resolving the internal tensions and divisions as the precondition for introducing, vigorously and emphatically, reforms of the judiciary, in line with European standards, that would enhance the independence and impartiality of judges on the one hand, and the efficiency of the system of administering justice on the other. Key words: judicial reform in Ukraine, EU-Ukraine cooperation, political stability. en Інститут держави і права ім. В.М. Корецького НАН України Часопис Київського університету права Правова система України й міжнародне право, порівняльне правознавство Judicial Reform in Ukraine Meeting European Standards Article published earlier |
| spellingShingle | Judicial Reform in Ukraine Meeting European Standards Pottakis, A.I. Правова система України й міжнародне право, порівняльне правознавство |
| title | Judicial Reform in Ukraine Meeting European Standards |
| title_full | Judicial Reform in Ukraine Meeting European Standards |
| title_fullStr | Judicial Reform in Ukraine Meeting European Standards |
| title_full_unstemmed | Judicial Reform in Ukraine Meeting European Standards |
| title_short | Judicial Reform in Ukraine Meeting European Standards |
| title_sort | judicial reform in ukraine meeting european standards |
| topic | Правова система України й міжнародне право, порівняльне правознавство |
| topic_facet | Правова система України й міжнародне право, порівняльне правознавство |
| url | https://nasplib.isofts.kiev.ua/handle/123456789/22962 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT pottakisai judicialreforminukrainemeetingeuropeanstandards |