Quota of the Judges' Congress in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine: Who Passed the Interviews with the Advisory Expert Group

Public interviews of candidates for the positions of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine under the quota of the Judges' Congress, conducted by the Advisory Expert Group from July 31 to August 1, became the next stage of selection after analyzing the candidates' dossiers.

On July 31, the Advisory Expert Group conducted interviews with six candidates participating in the competitive selection for two positions of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

Rasim Babanli

Acting Head of the Apparatus of the Supreme Court, Rasim Babanli is one of the most well-known representatives of the analytical direction of the judicial system. For many years, he was responsible for summarizing judicial practice, analyzing decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and methodological support of the Supreme Court’s activities. Babanli holds a Doctor of Law degree and is the author of numerous scientific works on criminal law and judicial practice. In previous competitive procedures for the Constitutional Court, he did not receive negative conclusions from the Advisory Expert Group regarding moral qualities or professional competence, and there is no information in open sources about disciplinary sanctions against him.

During the interview, the Advisory Expert Group focused mainly on questions of the candidate’s family’s financial integrity. Most questions concerned the purchase of an apartment by his mother in 2010, valued at over 172 thousand US dollars. Experts paid attention to the ratio of the parents' official incomes to the value of the acquired property. In response, the candidate requested part of the discussion to be held without open broadcasting due to the need to disclose personal data of his deceased father and explained that the family had other sources of funding, including assistance from his brother, who, according to him, received significant funds from the sale of a land plot.

A separate block of questions concerned academic integrity. The Advisory Expert Group noted the use of works by Russian scholars in the candidate’s 2010 dissertation. Babanli explained that the research was conducted before the start of Russian aggression, and the use of these sources was due to the need for a comprehensive analysis of scientific literature. At the same time, he noted that in his doctoral dissertation, prepared after 2014, mainly Ukrainian and Western scientific sources were used.

Experts also asked about the gift agreement for the apartment from his mother, in which the property’s value was set significantly lower than at the time of purchase several years earlier. The candidate explained this by the specifics of the agreement between close relatives and noted that such valuation did not affect taxation since gifts between first-degree relatives are not taxed.

The interview materials indicate that the key issues for the Advisory Expert Group were the financial origin of certain family assets and the completeness of the candidate’s explanations regarding these circumstances. At the same time, no significant claims regarding his professional experience, scientific qualifications, or disciplinary history were voiced during the interview.

Candidate’s Reputation Profile

Among potential reputational factors is the fact that Babanli has long held a managerial position in the Supreme Court apparatus, which leads some experts to perceive him as a representative of the current judicial system. However, there are currently no official negative conclusions from the Advisory Expert Group or disciplinary bodies that would question his integrity or professional competence. The assessment of the persuasiveness of explanations regarding property issues will be one of the main elements of the Advisory Expert Group’s final conclusion.

Oleksii Kravchuk

Judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court Oleksii Kravchuk is among the candidates with one of the strongest professional profiles in the competition. He has served as a judge of the HACC since its establishment, holds a Doctor of Law degree, is a professor, and before his appointment as a judge, headed the Department of Commercial and Administrative Law at the Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute and has experience working in local government bodies.

During the interview, the Advisory Expert Group focused on three blocks of questions. The first concerned academic integrity. Members of the group noted a significant overlap between the text of the doctoral dissertation and a previously published monograph by the candidate. Kravchuk explained that the monograph essentially contained the results of his dissertation research and was published according to the requirements in effect at the time of defense. According to him, it was not about using others' scientific works but about reusing his own research results.

The second block concerned the origin of funds for building a garden house and purchasing other property. The candidate stated that financing was carried out from official judicial remuneration, previous savings, and other declared incomes. Members of the group also inquired about a lifetime maintenance agreement under which the apartment was acquired.

His lawsuits to the High Anti-Corruption Court regarding the calculation of judicial remuneration were also discussed. Kravchuk explained that he had to go to court due to the then three-month deadline for labor disputes to avoid missing the procedural deadline before the Constitutional Court’s final decision.

Reputation Profile

No negative conclusions from the Public Integrity Council, disciplinary decisions, or negative conclusions from the Advisory Expert Group in previous competitions were found in open sources regarding Oleksii Kravchuk. The main questions during the interview concerned academic integrity and property explanations, not disciplinary or ethical violations.

At the same time, as a HACC judge, he works in an institution at the center of public and political attention, but this circumstance itself is not a negative characteristic of the candidate.

Olesia Nikon

Judge of the Commercial Court of Lviv Region, Olesia Nikon, became one of the few female candidates who are participating again after receiving a negative conclusion from the Advisory Expert Group. Much of her interview was devoted to attempting to refute the remarks that led to her exclusion from the previous competitive selection.

The candidate has over 20 years of legal experience, including more than 13 years as a judge in commercial jurisdiction. In 2019, she was appointed a judge for an indefinite term, and in 2025 she earned a PhD in law, defending a dissertation on the digitalization of the justice system.

In May 2025, the Advisory Expert Group concluded that Olesia Nikon did not meet the criterion of high moral qualities, which led to her exclusion from the previous competition. The experts' remarks mainly concerned financial integrity and academic ethics.

During the current interview, the candidate essentially built her position around refuting the previous conclusions of the Advisory Expert Group.

The main focus was on the value of the alienated real estate. Experts revisited the circumstances of the house sale, which previously raised doubts due to its price. In response, Olesia Nikon provided an expert judicial opinion stating that the house, built in 1864, had about 58% physical wear and was in unsatisfactory technical condition, which, in her opinion, explains the sale price.

The second block of questions concerned academic integrity. The candidate reported voluntarily undergoing a polygraph test, which addressed the issues that previously caused doubts in the Advisory Expert Group during the evaluation of her scientific works. According to Nikon, the test results confirm the absence of intentional violations of academic ethics.

During the interview, she also emphasized that she perceives integrity as an integral standard of the judicial profession and explained her participation in the competition by a desire to work on the development of constitutional justice, particularly in digitalization of the judicial system and protection of citizens' constitutional rights.

Reputation Profile

The positive side of the candidate remains her long judicial experience, absence of information about disciplinary sanctions, scientific activity, and specialization in commercial jurisdiction.

At the same time, the main reputational factor remains the negative conclusion of the Advisory Expert Group dated May 29, 2025, regarding non-compliance with the criterion of high moral qualities. The Advisory Expert Group will provide the final assessment of how much these explanations have removed previous doubts based on the results of the current competitive selection.

Oleksii Klymenko

Oleksii Klymenko works at the Office of the Prosecutor General, holding a managerial position in a structural unit that exercises procedural guidance in cases related to the events of the Revolution of Dignity 2013–2014. He has over 18 years of legal experience and has worked in prosecution bodies at various levels.

During the previous evaluation, the Advisory Expert Group did not express concerns about the candidate’s compliance with the criterion of high moral qualities, so from the point of view of integrity, his candidacy was not subject to negative conclusions.

The interview with Oleksii Klymenko took the least time compared to other participants in the current selection. Members of the Advisory Expert Group did not ask additional questions, noting that all issues arising during the analysis of materials were exhaustively explained in written explanations submitted before the interview.

In his closing remarks, the candidate emphasized that he took into account the remarks expressed during the previous competition and worked on deepening his knowledge in constitutional law, as the level of constitutional competence was the main subject of criticism.

Reputation Profile

An important factor in assessing Oleksii Klymenko’s profile is the January conclusion of the Advisory Expert Group adopted within another competitive selection. Then, the group noted the lack of proven adequate professional competence in law but did not raise any concerns about his integrity or moral-ethical qualities.

There is no publicly available information about disciplinary liability, involvement in corruption incidents, or violations of ethical norms concerning Klymenko.

Unlike many other candidates, he has prosecutorial experience but no experience working in the judicial system. His academic output in constitutional law is less extensive compared to candidates holding doctorates or with many years of teaching experience—these aspects were previously the subject of professional discussion regarding his readiness to work in the Constitutional Court.

Svitlana Muzychko

Svitlana Muzychko, judge of the Kyiv Court of Appeal, has one of the longest professional tenures among the candidates. For over two decades, she has administered justice, working as a judge of the Darnytskyi District Court of Kyiv, the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, and after judicial reform, the Kyiv Court of Appeal. At the beginning of 2026, she defended her dissertation and earned a PhD in law.

At the same time, her interview was one of the most detailed regarding the verification of the criterion of high moral qualities.

The Advisory Expert Group devoted the most time to the circumstances of the candidate receiving official housing. Experts noted that from 2006 to 2009, Muzychko was registered with her children in the dormitory of the Darnytskyi District Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, although she actually lived elsewhere—in the house of her former husband. This registration became the basis for placing her on the housing waiting list as someone needing improved living conditions.

In 2009, the judge received a three-room apartment in Kyiv with an area of about 95 square meters. During the interview, the candidate did not deny that she did not actually live in this apartment. According to her, relatives of her former husband lived there, and in 2018 the apartment was alienated for about 85 thousand US dollars.

A separate block of questions concerned an administrative case about a traffic accident. The Advisory Expert Group noted that in 2021, the Pechersky District Court considered materials regarding holding the candidate administratively liable under Articles 122-4 and 124 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (leaving the scene of an accident and violation of traffic rules causing damage to vehicles).

During the interview, Svitlana Muzychko explained that she did not feel the moment of collision and learned about the incident only after the insurance company’s claim.

For the Advisory Expert Group, it was important not only the administrative proceeding itself but also the judge’s behavior after the event, as the case was closed after the expiration of the liability period, not due to the absence of an offense.

Members of the Advisory Expert Group also analyzed discrepancies between explanations previously provided by the candidate to the High Qualification Commission of Judges and the Advisory Expert Group regarding notification of interference in the administration of justice. In addition, errors in declarations for 2018–2020 were discussed, particularly concerning the reflection of monetary assets. Muzychko explained these by a misunderstanding of electronic declaration rules, emphasizing that she had no intention to conceal information.

Reputation Profile

Svitlana Muzychko’s professional portfolio is based on her long tenure in the appellate court and the absence of information about disciplinary sanctions or negative conclusions from the Advisory Expert Group in previous competitions.

At the same time, the current interview showed that the biggest questions about the candidate concern not the level of professional competence but the ethical component: the story with official housing, the administrative case regarding the traffic accident, and explanations about property declarations.

Oksana Klymenko

The university professor became almost the only female candidate about whom the Advisory Expert Group expressed almost no claims. She had previously received positive conclusions from the Advisory Expert Group twice regarding compliance with integrity criteria.

Oksana Klymenko holds a Doctor of Law degree, is a professor, has over thirty years of professional experience in law, and extensive scientific and expert work experience. She worked in the field of scientific and legal support of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and also in 2025 in the Secretariat of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

The candidate’s main scientific work is devoted to constitutional, civil, and private law, protection of property rights, and the correlation of private and public interests. She is the author of over 190 scientific works.

The interview held on July 31 was among the shortest. Members of the Advisory Expert Group practically did not ask additional questions regarding integrity or professional activity, noting that most issues had already been assessed during previous competitive procedures.

Separately, the candidate herself raised the issue of her son’s stay abroad, explaining that he left Ukraine before the full-scale invasion and, after passing a military-medical commission, was recognized as unfit for military service and removed from military registration according to the law. According to the candidate, she considered it necessary to provide this explanation given the public nature of the competition.

Reputation Profile

There is no information in open sources about disciplinary proceedings, corruption scandals, or other circumstances that could call her integrity into question.

An important advantage is also her history of passing competitive procedures. During previous competitions for the Constitutional Court, the Advisory Expert Group twice recognized her as meeting the criterion of high moral qualities and positively assessed her professional competence.

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