Service in the SBU Does Not Grant Automatic Military Benefits in the Judicial Competition: The Grand Chamber Supported the HQCJ

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in case No. 990/314/25 confirmed the legality of the decision to refuse admission of a candidate to the selection for the position of a local court judge, who insisted that as a serviceman he had the right to extended deadlines for submitting documents. The court recognized that the mere fact of service in the SBU structure and participation in defense measures is not sufficient without confirmation of service specifically in a military formation within the meaning of the HQCJ's special procedure.

Essence of the Dispute

In July 2025, the plaintiff applied to the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court with a lawsuit against the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine. The plaintiff requested to cancel the HQCJ decision dated May 26, 2025, No. 645/ds-25, which denied him admission to participate in the selection for the position of a local court judge, to oblige the Commission to reconsider the issue of his admission, and also to provide the opportunity to take the qualification exam within the selection under a separate schedule.

In support of the claim, the plaintiff stated that the disputed decision is illegal and discriminatory. He indicated that at the time of submitting documents he was serving in one of the military formations created within the Security Service of Ukraine system, and therefore had the right to apply the Special procedure for servicemen submitting documents to participate in the selection announced on December 11, 2024, for the position of a local court judge, defined by the HQCJ decision dated January 15, 2025, No. 14/zp-25.

Accordingly, the plaintiff insisted that he had the right to submit documents for participation in the selection until May 1, 2025, and not until March 30, 2025, as provided by the general announcement about the selection of candidates for the position of a local court judge.

Disagreeing with the first instance court decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal, referring to incomplete establishment of circumstances, incorrect application of legal norms, and violation of procedural requirements. He argued that the Special procedure for servicemen should apply to all persons with the status of serviceman, regardless of the unit, and therefore he had the right to an extended deadline for submitting documents. The appellant also pointed to the SBU's participation in repelling Russian aggression and the incorrectness of the court's formal approach.

The HQCJ objected, stating that the Special procedure applies only if service in the Armed Forces or other military formations is confirmed, which the plaintiff did not prove, and that the deadline for submitting documents was missed by him.

Conclusions of the Grand Chamber

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court left unchanged the decision of the Administrative Cassation Court, which refused to satisfy the claim of the candidate for the position of judge against the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine regarding refusal of admission to the selection.

The court established that according to the Law "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges" and the HQCJ decision on announcing the selection, submission of documents after the specified deadline is not allowed. Separately, the Commission introduced a Special procedure for servicemen, but it applies only if a combination of conditions is met: serviceman status, service at the time of submitting documents, and belonging to the Armed Forces or other military formations.

The Grand Chamber agreed with the conclusions that service in the SBU can be taken into account within the Special procedure only in terms of its military formations, and the mere fact of service in the SBU structure is not sufficient for automatic application of the privileged deadline. The documents submitted by the plaintiff did not confirm his service specifically in a military formation within the SBU, nor did they contain data about belonging to such a formation.

The court also noted that the plaintiff did not prove the existence of circumstances that objectively prevented the submission of documents within the general deadline. Arguments about performing combat missions and participation in defense measures were recognized as not changing the legal assessment of compliance with established procedural requirements.

Regarding claims of discrimination, the Grand Chamber emphasized that each decision on admission to the selection is individual and depends on the submitted documents and confirmed circumstances, and the mere fact of admitting other candidates under similar conditions does not indicate inequality of approach.

In conclusion, the Grand Chamber found that the HQCJ acted within its powers, in the manner and on the grounds defined by law, and there are no grounds to cancel the decision to refuse admission to the selection. The appeal was dismissed, and the first instance court decision remained unchanged.

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