European integration and the reform of Ukraine's justice system have brought heightened attention to the mechanisms for appointing judges of the courts of general jurisdiction, judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) and members of the judicial governance bodies. One of the most debated, yet most innovative, instruments in this area has been the introduction of competition commissions with the participation of international (foreign) experts, intended to ensure transparency and impartiality and to bring national procedures into line with international rule-of-law standards.
The involvement of international (foreign) experts in the work of competition commissions within the judicial authorities and the CCU emerged in response to a number of systemic problems:
- the inability of the judicial governance bodies (primarily the High Council of Justice (HCJ)) and the CCU to take decisions under political pressure;
- attempts by some judges to interfere in judicial decision-making;
- the persistently low level of public trust in the courts (according to sociological surveys conducted by the Razumkov Centre, the National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NACP) and others).
Together, these factors ultimately resulted in an inability to respond effectively to the crises that regularly arose in the judiciary and the CCU. The requirement to involve international (foreign) experts was also enshrined in Ukraine’s commitments to international organisations and partners. In particular, such involvement was regarded as a safeguard that provided additional oversight of compliance with the principles of judicial independence and professional integrity, as well as the prevention of corruption risks.
The active involvement of international (foreign) experts in the composition of competition commissions within the judicial authorities and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine began in 2018. On the one hand, the introduction of these experts into the work of the competition commissions was a response to the low level of public trust in the judiciary and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. On the other, it was driven by Ukraine’s international commitments (the Ukraine Facility Plan and European Commission reports), as well as by the Rule of Law Roadmap.
The relevance of this study lies in the fact that examining the results of the work of competition commissions with the participation of international (foreign) experts enables not only to assess their effectiveness in the context of judicial reform, but also to formulate well-grounded proposals for improving their work.
For the purposes of this study, the work of the competition commissions was assessed over the period from January 2022 to November 2025 inclusive. As regards the conduct of competition procedures, updated data as of April 2026 were used.
The study focuses on analysing the work (including the legal framework) of the following competition commissions: the Ethics Council; the Competition Commission for the Selection of Candidates for the Positions of Members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (the HQCJ Competition Commission); the Competition Commission for Conducting the Competition for the Positions of Head of the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors, Deputy Head of the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors and Disciplinary Inspector (the SDI Competition Commission); the Advisory Group of Experts (AGE); the Public Council of International Experts (PCIE); the Expert Council (legal framework only); and the Public Integrity Council (PIC) — the last of these to the extent relevant for comparison with the work of those commissions which, under the law, are to be replaced by the Public Integrity Council once the current compositions complete their terms. The relevant Supreme Court case law was also analysed.
As part of the study, the interviews held were analysed — the special joint meetings of the HQCJ and the PCIE with candidates for the positions of judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) and the CCU; Head of the Service of Disciplinary Inspectors, Deputy Head and disciplinary inspectors; and members of the HQCJ and the HCJ. In total, 143 candidate interviews were reviewed and analysed, together with the decisions of the competition commissions concerning those candidates. Interviews were also conducted with members of several competition commissions.
The study centres on analysing the consistency of the criteria for selecting candidates and the consistency of the approaches taken by the competition commissions in determining whether candidates meet the criteria assessed. The work of the competition commissions was assessed in terms of the mechanism for forming their composition, the number of international (foreign) representatives within them, the qualification requirements, the scope of their powers, the assessment criteria, and so on.
Where relevant, the work of the competition commissions was also compared with that of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).
The conclusions drawn from the study rest, in particular, on statistical data from these competition commissions reflecting the outcomes of their work.
A separate part of the report sets out specific recommendations for addressing the problems identified in the course of the study — recommendations that can serve as reference points for the further development of public policy in this area.
This document has been prepared with the support of Sweden. The contents of the document are the sole responsibility of the CSO ‘Agency for Legislative Initiatives’ and do not necessarily reflect the position of Sweden.
