Material by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives for Ukrainska Pravda
On 8 October, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (VRU) failed to vote in favour of appointing two judges to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU), while the President, through his decrees, appointed two new members to the High Council of Justice (HCJ) and 20 judges to general jurisdiction courts.
In an attempt to balance the public perception of ‘defeats and victories’, these three developments revealed opposite tendencies within the justice system — formal progress on the surface, yet the persistence of old approaches to decision-making. The Agency for Legislative Initiatives analyses how this may affect the further course of judicial reform and Ukraine’s European integration.
Half a Step Forward
The appointment of two members to the HCJ is a long-awaited decision. The President had, for a long time, failed to appoint candidates who had already been vetted and recommended by the Ethics Council. The High Council of Justice now consists of 17 members out of 21, which strengthens its institutional capacity — until recently, the HCJ had been operating on the verge of a quorum. This will now allow for more effective consideration of disciplinary cases and decisions on the appointment and dismissal of judges, as well as the disciplining of those who previously could not be held accountable due to an insufficient number of members.
At the same time, the authorities once again ignored candidates from civil society — including those with experience in the judicial system — whose nominations had repeatedly been supported by international partners.
Yet Zelenskyy continues the flawed practice of issuing ‘personal decrees’, whereby each judge is appointed individually. This allows the use of the so-called ‘basket system’, where candidates are divided into two conditional ‘baskets’: those who may be appointed immediately and those who are to be held back.
Such selectivity creates personal dependency — where each newly appointed judge seemingly owes gratitude to the President personally rather than to the system. Consequently, it poses a risk to judicial independence and could lead to political bias in the future.
A Step Down
The failed vote on the Constitutional Court judges signalled a systemic inability to uphold domestic laws and EU-integration commitments. The Verkhovna Rada had already delayed the selection process by more than eight months. When the vote finally took place, it appeared that the Servant of the People majority simply lacked the necessary votes. No one wished to negotiate with other factions over the candidates. Everything seems rather banal: no votes for ‘our people’ — no votes at all. Moreover, this does not block the EU-integration process, as the President recently appointed two CCU judges under his quota — Oleksandr Vodiannikov and Yurii Barabash. Instead of responsibility, there is cold calculation. Yet experience shows there are always enough votes when it is necessary and convenient.
It is ironic that it was the Verkhovna Rada itself that, several years ago, amended the law to introduce a competitive selection for the CCU with the participation of an independent advisory body — in this case, the Advisory Group of Experts (AGE). This was intended to make the competition transparent and to prevent political influence.
Now, however, when the mechanism has worked and those shortlisted through the new competition involving international experts have reached the final stage, Parliament has simply failed to implement the very law it adopted. Moreover, some MPs are attempting to shift the blame onto the AGE, claiming that it selected the ‘wrong’ candidates. Yet the problem does not lie with the experts, but with the deputies themselves, who are blatantly refusing to follow their own rules.
The Closed Circle of Competitions
What happens next? The competition for vacancies from the Verkhovna Rada will have to start from scratch: once again announcing the selection, engaging the AGE, and spending months on vetting, interviews and so forth. But the greatest harm is done not so much to the process as to the people.
For those who took part in open competitions, this sends a clear message — even if you win fairly, you may simply never be appointed. Meanwhile, politicians gain another opportunity to restart the process and select more ‘loyal’ candidates.
In effect, Parliament is not only stalling the fulfilment of EU-integration obligations but also demotivating those who are ready to change the system from within — taking, once again, two steps back.
Between Politics and Law
The events of 8 October vividly illustrated one of the main problems of Ukrainian reforms — they stop where political interest begins. On the one hand, the High Council of Justice has received new members and a chance to become effective, while the Constitutional Court remains mired in uncertainty.
When the authorities block the appointment of judges selected through independent competitions, they are not merely retreating from European standards — they are demonstrating that even laws already passed can be devalued by political expediency.
