Judiciary at the Start of EU Accession Negotiations: Independence, Accountability, and Predictability as a Cross-Cutting Criterion

Ihor Zavalniuk, Judge of the Odesa District Administrative Court, Doctor of Law

On June 15, 2026, Ukraine opened the first negotiation cluster on the path to the EU in Luxembourg — Cluster 1 "Foundations." This happened after a veto that had blocked the start of substantive negotiations for over two years was lifted. The event was called historic, and rightly so. But for the judiciary, its significance is measured not by the solemnity of the moment, but by how long we will feel its consequences. According to the logic of the negotiations, the "Foundations" cluster is opened first and closed last. Therefore, Chapter 23 "Judiciary and Fundamental Rights" will accompany us throughout the entire accession process. Thus, the assessment of the state of justice ceases to be a one-time campaign. It becomes a constant cross-cutting criterion on which the overall pace of negotiations will depend.

It is obvious that such a status of the judiciary is not accidental. The European approach is based on a simple idea: without an independent, accountable, and effective court, there will be no sustainable progress anywhere — neither in the investment climate nor in national security. It is quite justified that achievements in the economy or public administration remain vulnerable without reliable justice.

At the same time, Europe evaluates more than just the letter of the law. Harmonization of national legislation with EU legal acts is only part of the picture. The focus is on substantive standards of the rule of law as understood by the EU Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the Venice Commission, and GRECO. In other words, they look not at the text of the norm but at how institutions actually function. Obviously, the greatest burden here falls on administrative justice. Administrative courts from their inception have been at the forefront of relations between the individual and the state — and it is precisely in public-law disputes that our international partners will closely monitor whether the state conscientiously fulfills its obligations and whether the court can provide real, not just paper, protection against abuse of power.

One thesis deserves special mention. European standards do not oppose a judge's independence to their accountability — they consider them two sides of the same coin. Indeed, independence without responsibility slides into lack of control. Responsibility without guarantees of independence easily becomes a tool of pressure. Therefore, the Consultative Council of European Judges consistently repeats the thesis that the disciplinary mechanism is not a threat to judicial independence but, on the contrary, its guarantee. But only when it is transparent, predictable, and protected from political or corporate influence. After all, the quality of the disciplinary function is not a technical procedure. It is an indicator of the maturity of the entire system.

Hence the main point. The most sensitive test of the reform is not the renewed composition of institutions itself, but a stable and consistent disciplinary practice. When different decisions are made for the same offenses, predictability disappears, and with it — trust in the body making these decisions. I will add something mentioned less often: predictable practice also protects the judge. In light of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, transparent criteria during disciplinary proceedings or qualification assessments protect the judge from disproportionate interference in private life and from unjustified damage to professional reputation.

Our international partners expect from our state not so much new laws as measurable results. For Chapter 23 "Judiciary and Fundamental Rights," the European Commission has defined interim benchmarks — specific indicators tied not only to the adoption of legislation but also to how it is applied and how the integrity of judges and prosecutors is ensured. In the disciplinary area, this primarily means less subjectivity in complaint qualification, absence of delays, and clear criteria for assessing judge behavior. Proportionality holds a special place — a principle well known from the practice of the European Court of Human Rights: the severity of the sanction must correspond to the nature and degree of the offense. If the response to violations is not governed by a single logic, the system loses not only fairness but also the ability to prevent violations.

At the same time, it is worth remembering: strict but lawful and transparent rules for the selection and accountability of judges are the norm for EU member states, not someone else's external invention. For example, France has a single corps of magistrates with disciplinary control within the High Council of the Judiciary. Germany has consistent professional screening through state exams and a probationary period for judges. The Netherlands applies behavioral and psychological evaluation of candidates. The paths differ, but the task is the same: to combine independence with accountability.

But there is a significant difference. These systems were formed over decades and relied on already existing public trust. Ukraine is reforming justice under unprecedented conditions — during a full-scale war and with an acute deficit of trust. Add to this the enormous daily workload on judges and a personnel shortage — these are not abstractions but the reality in which European standards must be implemented. That is why international experts, ethics councils, and public institutions are temporarily involved in selection and evaluation procedures. And European experience suggests that such external integrity safeguards are acceptable as a transitional guarantee while internal institutions strengthen — but not as a permanent component of the system. The stronger the internal mechanisms become, the smaller the role of the external element should be.

Thus, the opening of the "Foundations" cluster is not a finish line but the start of a long marathon. In it, the judiciary is both the object of assessment and its participant. At the same time, the true measure of reform will not be declarations but daily practice: motivated, proportional, and predictable court decisions made within reasonable timeframes. Equally important is the ability of judicial governance bodies to speak honestly and openly with society — because it is precisely the clarity and reasoned nature of decisions that determine whether they will be accepted within the professional community and beyond. It seems that European integration of justice is primarily a matter of institutional endurance. And when it comes to a chapter that will be closed last, the winner is not the one capable of a one-time sprint but the one who maintains the standard for years.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and on Google News SUD.UA, as well as on our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and on Instagram to stay updated on the most important events.