Court under Brussels' scrutiny: Ukraine must create a gold standard for judge selection to join the EU

Ukraine has officially started negotiations with the EU on a fundamental cluster, with the judicial system being the first subject of reform. On June 15 in Luxembourg, a historic event for Ukraine took place: the opening of Cluster 1 "Fundamentals of the EU accession process".

Negotiations on Ukraine's accession to the EU will follow the "First open, last closed" principle: Cluster 1 opens first and closes last. This means that Chapter 23 "Judiciary and Fundamental Rights" will accompany Ukraine throughout the entire EU accession negotiation process.

Brussels emphasizes that without an independent, accountable, and effective judiciary, progress in other areas — from the economy to security — will not guarantee successful completion of negotiations. That is why judicial reform remains one of the key membership criteria, as it ensures the rule of law, investment protection, and trust in state institutions.

The European assessment of Ukraine's judicial reform is based not on formal harmonization of legislation with the EU acquis in a narrow sense, but on compliance with fundamental principles of the rule of law, shaped by the practice of the EU Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Venice Commission's recommendations. The main criteria are institutional independence and integrity of the judiciary, as well as the effectiveness of the anti-corruption institutional architecture that ensures the state's real, not declarative, capacity to combat corruption.

What has actually been done

Restart of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) and High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ)

The key result here is not just "renewing the composition," but restoring constitutional continuity of judicial governance bodies and implementing a selection mechanism involving international experts.

The selection of members of judicial governance bodies was conducted with direct participation of international experts (including the Ethics Council for the HCJ and the Competition Commission for the HQCJ). International involvement is effectively a temporary compensator for the weakness of internal trust institutions.

This is not an EU standard per se, but a transitional tool to increase the legitimacy of selection.

Roadmap on the rule of law

Simultaneously, a Roadmap on the rule of law was developed — a strategic document that became one of the key guidelines for opening Negotiation Cluster 1. It contains a systematic list of reforms with specific performance indicators and timelines, effectively turning political commitments into measurable implementation obligations.

It is important not to confuse this political document with a legal one; the roadmap is a programmatic tool for implementing the acquis in the area of Chapters 23/24. In other words, it is not a legal norm but a managerial superstructure over reforms.

Creation of the Disciplinary Inspectors Service

Legally, restoring the disciplinary function of the High Council of Justice by creating the Disciplinary Inspectors Service was intended to unblock the consideration of a significant number of complaints against judges, which was previously complicated due to institutional gaps in the former disciplinary proceedings model.

Creating this service as an autonomous unit of the HCJ is a critical benchmark. By the end of 2026, Ukraine has committed to resolving at least 50% of the "old" disciplinary cases.

Digitalization of the HQCJ and judges' dossiers

A separate reform direction concerns the digitalization of the judicial system. The introduction of electronic judges' dossiers and automation of procedures in the HQCJ aim to reduce discretionary decisions and increase transparency in personnel processes.

Participation of the Public Integrity Council (PIC) and international experts

The constitutional procedure was also improved according to the Venice Commission's recommendations, and public and international expert participation was introduced in judge selection and evaluation processes. The Public Integrity Council continues to act as an external integrity arbitrator, while international experts serve as an additional guarantee of objectivity, particularly in the selection processes for the High Anti-Corruption Court.

International participation in selecting High Anti-Corruption Court judges is an example of an "external integrity screening mechanism," which the EU considers acceptable only as a temporary guarantee, not a permanent model.

Additionally, the process of enacting legislation on reviewing judges' integrity declarations and their verification procedures continues.

Collectively, these changes allowed the European Commission to acknowledge significant progress in Ukraine's rule of law sphere, although they are viewed only as an intermediate stage of a broader transformation.

Non-negotiable EU requirements: what steps Ukraine must take under Chapter 23

Despite the positive assessment, Brussels has set a number of requirements that Ukraine must fulfill by the end of 2027 to successfully close the chapter. This is not about new laws but about concrete results in cleansing the system, stable disciplinary practice, and transparent competition procedures.

The focus is on the High Council of Justice, High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, Disciplinary Inspectors Service, and mechanisms of public and international oversight.

High Council of Justice

European requirements for the HCJ concentrate on ensuring its institutional independence and the effectiveness of its disciplinary function. This concerns not only formal cleansing of the composition but also forming a stable practice of transparent disciplinary case consideration and preventing political or corporate influence on decision-making.

The key challenge remains reducing subjectivity in complaint qualification and preventing delays in proceedings against judges with questionable integrity. The EU also focuses on establishing clear and predictable integrity criteria as part of disciplinary practice.

High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine

The EU focuses on completing the large-scale qualification assessment of the judicial corps and ensuring fast but quality selection for vacant positions. The EU demands completion of judge selection processes to overcome staff shortages at all court levels. The European assessment emphasizes the need to balance procedural efficiency with quality candidate evaluation.

Supreme and Constitutional Courts

Despite quorum restoration in 2025, the EU requires immediate filling of remaining vacancies and implementation of the Constitutional Court judges' Code of Ethics.

Improvements in the selection procedure for new Supreme Court judges involving independent experts are planned to overcome the trust crisis.

Disciplinary Inspectors Service

The EU views the DIS as a key element of the new disciplinary vertical, intended to ensure preliminary, technically high-quality, and institutionally autonomous consideration of disciplinary complaints.

Requirements include staffing exclusively through competitive procedures, ensuring procedural independence, and minimizing risks of information leaks or informal influence.

Public Integrity Council

European approaches require clear normative definition of the PIC's status and its interaction with the HQCJ. The main requirement is to ensure a balance between public participation in integrity evaluation and respect for the constitutional competence of official judicial governance bodies.

An important guideline is GRECO's recommendations on transparency of procedures, conflict of interest prevention, and ensuring predictability of evaluation mechanisms.

Disciplinary practice as a key test of reform

The most sensitive element of judicial reform remains disciplinary practice regarding judges. The European Union views it as an indicator of real, not declarative, system change.

The effectiveness of the Disciplinary Inspectors Service is assessed by its ability to provide quality preparation of materials for the HCJ and prevent procedural delays. Adherence to the principles of proportionality and predictability of disciplinary sanctions is important, where the severity of punishment directly correlates with the nature of the offense.

There must not be situations where a judge is dismissed for a minor procedural violation, while systematic or egregious offenses only result in reprimands.

Audit and optimization

By Q4 2026, an audit of cases in courts must be conducted to identify those not subject to judicial review, as well as improve the system of "cassation filters" in procedural legislation.

GRECO recommendations as part of the European standard

An important component of EU requirements is the implementation of GRECO recommendations concerning corruption prevention in the judicial and prosecutorial systems.

Key directions include ensuring transparent distribution of disciplinary cases, minimizing conflicts of interest within the HCJ, strengthening whistleblower protection, and increasing procedural transparency of disciplinary proceedings.

How it works in the EU: European experience and guidelines for Ukraine

When criticism arises about excessive pressure from Brussels in judicial reform, the basic context is often ignored: EU standards are not an externally imposed construct but reflect the generalized experience of judicial systems in member states. In these models, judicial independence is inseparably linked to strict but lawful and transparent selection mechanisms and proportional disciplinary responsibility.

France: the magistrates' corps as a closed professional system

The French judicial career model is based on the concept of a single corps of magistrates, including both judges and prosecutors. Access to the profession is through the National School for the Judiciary (École nationale de la magistrature, ENM) in Bordeaux.

Admission to the ENM involves a multi-level competitive selection with written exams, oral interviews, and assessment of overall suitability for the profession. The selection system focuses not only on legal knowledge but also on cognitive resilience, ethical reliability, and capacity for public function.

Disciplinary control is exercised by the High Council of the Judiciary (Conseil supérieur de la magistrature, CSM), which combines representatives of the judiciary, legal community, and external members. Its function is to ensure professional responsibility of magistrates, including the possibility of severe disciplinary consequences in case of ethical standard violations.

Germany: state exams and career filter through practice

The German system is based on a two-stage state legal exam (Erstes und Zweites Staatsexamen). Only candidates with the highest results can apply for judicial positions.

After passing exams, candidates undergo an internship (Rechtsreferendariat), and the initial stage of judicial work is as a judge on probation (Richter auf Probe). During this period, systematic evaluation of professional competence, ethical behavior, and ability to make impartial decisions is conducted.

Effectively, this is a model of continuous screening, where judicial status gains final stability only after confirmation of practical suitability.

Netherlands: managerial assessment of behavior

The Dutch model combines legal training with behavioral and psychological assessment tools for candidates.

In addition to standard legal checks, candidates undergo structured simulation tests aimed at assessing the ability to act under pressure, conflicts of interest, and ethical dilemmas. Significant attention is paid to psychological resilience and the ability to maintain procedural neutrality.

The Netherlands Council for the Judiciary actively involves civil society in monitoring court performance, similar to the Ukrainian concept of interaction with the PIC but at a higher level of institutional trust.

The main difference between Ukraine and the models described lies not in formal tools but in the context of their application.

Judicial systems of EU member states have developed over a long time under conditions of relatively stable trust and gradual rule of law development. They rely on historically established mechanisms of professional selection and disciplinary responsibility.

Ukraine is simultaneously transforming its judicial system amid martial law and a trust deficit. This explains the use of more combined mechanisms to guarantee integrity, including participation of international experts, ethics councils, and public institutions.

Here arises another interesting paradox. While the EU demands transparency from Ukraine, experts note that the Ukrainian judge selection system is already more open than in many EU countries.

Ukraine is the first country in the world to involve international experts in creating the Anti-Corruption Court. British judges note that the level of publicity in Ukrainian competitions (live broadcasts of interviews, public questions) is unprecedented and absent, for example, in the United Kingdom.

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