Competition for the CCU 2026: Advisory Expert Group Completed Interviews with Candidates

The Advisory Expert Group has completed public interviews with candidates for the positions of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine under the quota of the Congress of Judges. Over several days, experts assessed the candidates based on criteria of high moral qualities.

On August 1, the AEG conducted interviews with five candidates participating in the competitive selection for two positions of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

Mykhailo Smokovych

One of the most experienced participants, former head of the Administrative Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court. He motivates his participation by the desire to bring experience in resolving complex jurisdictional disputes to the CCU. During the interview, he explained that he is going to the Constitutional Court to apply his many years of experience in resolving the most complex public-law disputes at the level of constitutional jurisdiction.

The interview with the candidate was one of the longest. A significant part of the questions from the Advisory Expert Group concerned not professional competence, but aspects of integrity that had previously been the subject of public discussions.

One of the main blocks was the issue of a possible conflict of interest. The AEG noted that during judicial control over the attestation of prosecutors, Smokovych, heading the Administrative Cassation Court, considered disputes involving prosecutors, while his wife worked in the prosecutor’s office. The candidate explained that his wife voluntarily resigned without undergoing attestation, and in cases concerning her former subordinates, he declared recusal.

A separate block of questions concerned the receipt of official housing. The AEG drew attention to claims previously expressed regarding compliance with housing legislation requirements during the provision of the apartment. Smokovych explained that the received housing was actually an unfinished object that required significant expenses for completion and arrangement.

Experts also returned to the issue of checks of the candidate’s declarations. Smokovych noted that the NACP decisions regarding his 2017 declaration were appealed, and administrative courts recognized them as unlawful and canceled them, not establishing intentional submission of false information.

A significant part of the interview was devoted to issues of integrity and reputational risks, while his professional competence and experience were practically not questioned. The assessment of these aspects may be decisive when making the final conclusion regarding the candidate’s compliance with the criteria of high moral qualities.

During the interview, it was officially confirmed that since March 2022, the candidate has been donating 60% of his monetary allowance to the needs of the army. Only in July 2026, this amount totaled 208 thousand hryvnias, and the total contribution exceeded the equivalent of 275 thousand US dollars.

Reputational Profile

Open sources also contain circumstances that form the candidate’s reputational profile. Mykhailo Smokovych has one of the strongest professional profiles among candidates: almost 30 years of judicial experience, work in all key instances of administrative justice, many years of leadership of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, as well as scientific and teaching activities. In open sources, the candidate’s professional experience is generally assessed as one of the most significant among competition participants.

In April 2021, the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice considered a disciplinary case regarding Mykhailo Smokovych but refused to bring him to disciplinary responsibility. The Chamber noted that the NACP did not establish signs of illegal enrichment, concealment of assets, or conflict of interest, and the subject of verification concerned the interpretation of declaration rules. Thus, disciplinary proceedings took place, but no disciplinary sanction was applied to the judge.

In May 2025, Smokovych voluntarily withdrew from the previous competition for the Constitutional Court.

Additionally, the Public Integrity Council previously issued negative conclusions regarding the candidate, linking them to the assessment of certain court decisions, professional activities during the Revolution of Dignity, and compliance with judicial ethics standards. At the same time, in July 2026, Smokovych expressed a separate opinion in a case concerning sanctions, using the law-provided right of a judge to a separate legal position.

Serhiy Solotkyi

One of the candidates interviewed on August 1 was Serhiy Solotkyi — a current serviceman of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, who worked in the judicial system for almost a quarter of a century before mobilization.

Serhiy Solotkyi’s professional biography significantly differs from most other candidates. He did not administer justice as a judge but worked for over twenty years in the legal departments of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

From 2000 to 2018, he worked in the apparatus of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, including in the department of generalization of judicial practice. After that, he moved to the Secretariat of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, where he held positions of chief consultant, deputy head of the legal department, and scientific consultant to a CCU judge.

Since December 2025, the candidate has been serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine with the officer rank of senior lieutenant. In 2016, he was awarded the honorary title "Honored Lawyer of Ukraine."

The main part of the interview was devoted to questions of property integrity.

The most questions concerned the purchase of a Ford Fiesta car, which the candidate’s wife declared at a value of 25.7 thousand UAH, while according to the AEG Secretariat, the average market value of similar cars was about 200 thousand UAH. Serhiy Solotkyi explained that the contract was concluded in accordance with current legislation, and the price determination is the right of the parties to the transaction. At the same time, he noted that tax payment was the seller’s responsibility.

A separate block of questions concerned the construction of a residential house in the village of Dmytrivka. The AEG members were interested in the relatively low cost of construction work, in their opinion. The candidate explained that he performed a significant part of the construction and interior work himself, which allowed a substantial reduction in expenses.

Experts also checked the origin of family savings declared in 2018. According to the candidate, they were formed from the wife’s income from private medical practice, repayment of family debts, parental assistance, and long-term personal savings.

Reputational Profile

Unlike some other candidates, no negative conclusions from the Advisory Expert Group, Public Integrity Council decisions, or disciplinary proceedings were recorded in open sources regarding Serhiy Solotkyi.

At the same time, despite significant experience working in the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court, the candidate never administered justice, and his professional path was related to the activities of the apparatus of judicial institutions. Explaining his motives for participating in the competition, Serhiy Solotkyi emphasized that the combination of many years of work in the Constitutional Court with current military service shaped his vision of the Constitution’s role as a guarantee of state stability during the war. According to the candidate, this experience is what he seeks to use if elected as a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

Oksana Tsmokalenko

Oksana Tsmokalenko is a lawyer representing the legal community in the competition. For over twenty years, her professional activity has been related to legal support in the banking and energy sectors, and since 2022 she has been practicing law, including cooperating with the free legal aid system and providing legal assistance to internally displaced persons. She names this practical experience as her main advantage.

During the interview on August 1, the Advisory Expert Group focused primarily on issues of financial integrity and declaration accuracy.

One of the main blocks was discrepancies in declarations for different years regarding information about real estate, corporate rights, and certain family members' incomes. The candidate explained these inaccuracies as technical errors and difficult working conditions during martial law but confirmed that she did not make corrections to the declaration within the legally prescribed period.

AEG members also discussed in detail the issue of a loan obligation that arose back in 2008. After the liquidation of the creditor bank, the candidate stopped servicing the loan, explaining that no new creditor approached her, and she assumed the statute of limitations had expired.

Experts also noted the almost identical content of motivation letters submitted for different judicial competitions. Oksana Tsmokalenko explained this by the fact that her professional experience and personal motivation had not changed, so she did not see the need to significantly change the text.

The candidate’s strengths remain significant legal work experience, practical advocacy experience, and the absence of confirmed disciplinary or corruption episodes in open sources.

At the same time, during the interview, issues of financial obligations, declaration accuracy, explanations regarding the loan, and the lack of scientific work in constitutional law became the main topics to which the Advisory Expert Group paid special attention.

Reputational Profile

There is no data in open sources about disciplinary proceedings, negative conclusions of the Public Integrity Council or Advisory Expert Group, or information about bringing Oksana Tsmokalenko to responsibility. At the same time, her professional profile is less public compared to candidates from judicial or academic environments, and the candidate has no scientific works in the field of constitutional law.

Andriy Savchak

Judge of the Peremyshlyany District Court of Lviv region Andriy Savchak combines practical judicial experience with experience working directly in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Before being appointed a judge, he worked for over six years as a scientific consultant to a Constitutional Court judge, which, according to the candidate, allowed him to deeply understand the features of the constitutional jurisdiction body and the mechanisms of preparing its decisions.

His total legal work experience is about 25 years, of which over 14 years as a judge. In 2009, Savchak obtained a PhD in law, defending a dissertation devoted to the constitutional-legal views of Stanislav Dnistryansky.

During the interview, the Advisory Expert Group focused mainly on circumstances that were the basis for a negative conclusion during the previous competitive selection.

The candidate explained his motives for participating in the competition, emphasizing that the combination of experience working in the Constitutional Court and many years of local court practice, in his opinion, can be useful for the development of constitutional jurisdiction and the formation of a stable constitutional doctrine.

Reputational Profile

Savchak’s professional advantage is direct experience working in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine even before being appointed a judge, as well as many years of judicial practice in a court of first instance. At the same time, his candidacy has relatively low public and scientific recognition compared to some competitors who have long worked in the Supreme Court, High Anti-Corruption Court, or academic environment.

The main emphasis during the evaluation of Andriy Savchak is shifted to the AEG decision previously made within the competition for the CCU. The AEG concluded that he did not meet the criterion of high moral qualities. The current competition is the candidate’s repeated attempt to convince the Advisory Expert Group to change this assessment.

At the same time, according to the candidate’s biography, he has not been subject to criminal or disciplinary liability. There is also no information in open sources about disciplinary sanctions applied to him by the High Council of Justice.

During the analysis of competition materials, the AEG also noted administrative offenses contained in documents submitted by the candidate. In particular, in 2024, Andriy Savchak was four times held administratively liable for exceeding the established speed limit (Article 122 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses). According to the candidate, fines were paid, and the relevant circumstances were not concealed from the competition commission.

Petro Salyuk

Judge of the Khmelnytskyi District Administrative Court Petro Salyuk represents a category of candidates who combine practical judicial experience with academic activity. He holds a PhD in law and since 2025 concurrently works as an associate professor at the Department of Constitutional, Administrative, and Financial Law. The administrative specialization related to disputes between individuals and the state is one of his professional arguments in the competition for the Constitutional Court.

A separate component of the candidate’s professional biography is military service. Petro Salyuk has the status of a combatant, performed combat missions during the anti-terrorist operation, and after the start of Russia’s full-scale aggression was mobilized to the Armed Forces of Ukraine and took direct part in hostilities.

At the same time, Petro Salyuk belongs to candidates who have already undergone evaluation by the Advisory Expert Group. In January 2026, the AEG concluded that he did not meet the criterion of recognized competence in the field of law. At the same time, the candidate did not receive a negative conclusion regarding high moral qualities.

His interview was one of the shortest. Most questions concerned not professional activity but property aspects that had already been analyzed by the AEG at previous stages. In particular, the candidate reported that he completed the registration and commissioning of a garden house of 73 sq. m, information about which previously raised clarifying questions. After analyzing the submitted documents, AEG members noted that they had no additional questions regarding this circumstance.

In his closing statement, Salyuk compared the State Judicial Administration to an "appendix" that hinders the development of the judiciary.

Reputational Profile

There is no information in open sources about disciplinary sanctions, corruption proceedings, or negative decisions of judicial governance bodies. The main circumstance characterizing the candidate’s competition history remains the previous AEG conclusion. In January 2026, during the competition for the position of judge of the Constitutional Court, the AEG concluded that Petro Salyuk did not meet the criterion of recognized competence in the field of law.

Who Has Already Withdrawn from the Competition

Before the interviews began, Lesya Balayeva, Nataliya Dzibiy-Polyachok, Oleh Ihnatiuk, and Larysa Rohach withdrew their candidacies.

Two other candidates — Vitaliy Prydatko and Serhiy Sotnikov — were not present at the interviews, so the AEG will evaluate them based on written materials.

What’s Next

The Advisory Expert Group plans to promptly complete the assessment of all candidates' compliance with the criterion of high moral qualities and announce decisions regarding them in the near future.

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