Cases May Begin to Be Automatically Transferred Between Courts: The High Council of Justice Proposes to Amend Legislation

The High Council of Justice addressed the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Legal Policy with a proposal to consider the feasibility of developing legislative amendments for the phased introduction of inter-court automated case distribution, taking into account the workload between courts of the same specialization and instance.

Inter-court automated distribution of certain categories of cases between courts of the same specialization and instance, considering normative workload, should become an effective mechanism for flexible and even use of the judicial system’s human resources without physically relocating judges.

The proposed model does not change the judicial system built on the principles of territoriality and specialization (Article 125 of the Constitution of Ukraine): distribution will occur only between courts established by law of the same specialization and instance.

Current rules of territorial jurisdiction are enshrined in procedural legislation, so implementing inter-court automated distribution considering workload requires amendments at least to the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges," the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.

The appeal was approved by the High Council of Justice decision dated July 21, 2026, No. 1485/0/15-26.

PUBLIC APPEAL

to the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Legal Policy

regarding the introduction of inter-court automated case distribution considering workload

I. General problem of excessive workload in courts

The problem of excessive workload in courts is one of the most significant systemic issues of the judiciary in Ukraine. It has not only an organizational but also a human rights dimension, as it affects case consideration timelines, predictability of judicial processes, and individuals' access to effective judicial protection.

Excessive workload leads to accumulation of unresolved cases, increased waiting times for court decisions, a rise in complaints against judges, risk of persons being released from liability due to statute of limitations, deterioration of court communication with participants, as well as professional burnout among judges and court staff. Ultimately, this negatively impacts access to justice, court authority, and creates a public perception of the judiciary’s inability to ensure timely and effective case consideration.

It is particularly dangerous that society often perceives prolonged case consideration as dishonesty of a specific judge or poor organization of a particular court, while in many cases the root cause is an objective shortage of judicial staff, outdated procedures, and uneven distribution of workload and resources between courts.

II. Staff shortage and uneven workload between courts

The judicial system operates under critical conditions due to a significant shortage of personnel and, consequently, excessive workload. Some judges resign or retire voluntarily, and in courts of frontline regions and courts assigned territorial jurisdiction of other courts, the workload additionally increases.

Currently, the number of judges resigning exceeds the number of judges appointed. In 2025, the President of Ukraine, based on submissions from the High Council of Justice, issued 87 decrees appointing 143 judges, while the High Council of Justice decided to dismiss 226 judges. As of June 22, 2026, the President issued 66 decrees appointing 74 judges, and the High Council of Justice decided to dismiss 94 judges.

The large number of dismissals without prompt staffing creates additional workload on active judges, and personnel losses lead to imbalance between courts of different levels and regions.

Uneven distribution of personnel creates varying levels of access to justice depending on the region.

Some courts operate under significant understaffing and excessive judicial workload.

Notable examples are the Novoukrainka District Court of Kirovohrad Region and the Zinkiv District Court of Poltava Region: with a maximum of five judge positions, only one judge administered justice in each. As a result, their normative workload more than doubled the average for one authorized judge in the respective court group.

At the same time, other factors affect the problem. In particular, there is significant unevenness of workload between courts, confirmed by statistical data from the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine (hereinafter – SJA Ukraine) "Information on the time indicators required for consideration of cases and materials received by appellate and local courts for Q1 2026" (attached).

The data show that the problem lies not only in the shortage of judges but also in significant unevenness of actual workload between courts. Some courts have workloads significantly exceeding the average for their group, while others have obvious procedural capacity reserves.

The difference between individual local general courts is multiple. For example, the normative workload per authorized judge in Novoukrainka District Court of Kirovohrad Region was 356.8 days, while in Monastyryshche District Court of Cherkasy Region – 17.1 days, Kolomak District Court of Kharkiv Region – 17.9 days, Rzhyshchiv City Court of Kyiv Region – 19.7 days, Pidhaitsi District Court of Ternopil Region – 21.4 days, Chornukhy District Court of Poltava Region – 22 days.

Thus, compared to Novoukrainka District Court, the workload is lower by approximately 20.9 times in Monastyryshche District Court, 19.9 times in Kolomak District Court, 18.1 times in Rzhyshchiv City Court, 16.6 times in Pidhaitsi District Court, and 16.2 times in Chornukhy District Court.

A similar imbalance is observed in large courts. In the Kyiv District Court of Odesa city, the normative workload per authorized judge was 314.2 days, and in the Pechersky District Court of Kyiv city – 233.7 days. These figures significantly exceed the average for local general courts (119.7 days) and greatly surpass the workload of low-load courts of the same specialization and instance.

Thus, territorial attachment of cases to a specific court under current conditions does not ensure rational use of the available judicial corps. In some courts, a judge effectively has a workload many times greater than judges in other courts of the same specialization and instance. This means citizens receive access to justice at different speeds not due to case complexity but due to the random circumstance of which court the case was assigned to.

III. Existing tools to address workload problems

The current mechanism of secondment of judges is an important tool to respond to critical staffing situations in certain courts, but it cannot be an effective systemic solution to uneven workload problems.

In 2025, the High Council of Justice made 173 decisions on judge secondments: 57 on secondment, 80 on extension of secondment, 1 on early termination of secondment and secondment of a judge, and 35 on early termination and simultaneous secondment of a judge.

In the first half of 2026, the High Council of Justice made 86 decisions on judge secondments, including 13 on secondment and 73 on extension.

These figures indicate the limited nature of this tool for systemic balancing. In 2025, 80 of 173 decisions (46.2%) concerned extension of secondment, and in the first half of 2026 – 73 of 86 (84.9%). Thus, a significant part of administrative resources is directed to maintaining already made personnel movements rather than dynamically balancing current workload.

Firstly, secondment is punctual and temporary and depends on the availability of judges who can be seconded without causing significant problems in their home courts. Secondly, this mechanism reacts to the consequences of imbalance but does not change the model of new case distribution. Thirdly, secondment does not allow daily automatic balancing of workload among hundreds of courts based on current data on incoming cases, backlogs, specialization, and judge availability.

Under these conditions, the secondment mechanism does not provide the possibility of systemic workload balancing between courts. It does not allow prompt compensation of disparities arising in different regions.

Appointment of new judges is also necessary but alone will not solve the problem in acceptable time or fully. Selection, qualification assessment, submission, and appointment procedures are lengthy. Moreover, even with gradual filling of vacancies, the problem of uneven case distribution between courts remains if cases continue to be rigidly tied to a specific court.

Additionally, appointing judges without changing existing normative case distribution procedures does not eliminate the main drawback of the current model: the case will still be "tied" to a specific court even if another court of the same specialization and instance has lower workload and real capacity to consider it faster.

Therefore, solving the workload problem should include not only increasing the number of judges but also improving judicial procedures' efficiency and fully utilizing digitalization advantages.

Electronic court, videoconferencing, electronic document flow, centralized workload data, normative case consideration time, and automated distribution will enable a more flexible model – inter-court automated case distribution considering workload.

IV. Feasibility of introducing inter-court automated case distribution considering workload

Inter-court automated distribution of certain categories of cases between courts of the same specialization and instance, considering normative workload, should become an effective mechanism for flexible and even use of the judicial system’s human resources without physically relocating judges.

The proposed model does not change the judicial system built on the principles of territoriality and specialization (Article 125 of the Constitution of Ukraine): distribution will occur only between courts established by law of the same specialization and instance. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine in its decision dated June 21, 2011, No. 7-rp/2011 noted that the principle of territoriality ensures territorial delimitation of courts' competence and is driven by the need for access to justice throughout Ukraine. Therefore, legislatively defined distribution of certain case categories, which preserves and improves access to justice, corresponds to the functional purpose of this principle.

The European Court of Human Rights in the case "Miracle Europe Kft v. Hungary" (decision dated January 12, 2016, application No. 57774/13, §§ 57–63) recognized the need for organizational measures to eliminate workload imbalance and prevent delays. At the same time, case transfer is compatible with Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms only when its material and procedural conditions are established by law with transparent, predetermined, clear, and objective criteria that leave no or minimal discretion. Thus, the model must be automated, verifiable, and exclude manual selection of case, court, or judge.

The practical feasibility of this approach is confirmed by models in Poland (nationwide electronic order proceedings), Estonia (centralized order proceedings unit), Germany (central courts of order proceedings in federal states), and Slovenia (centralized electronic enforcement based on reliable documents). Common to them is the concentration of standardized written procedures while preserving procedural guarantees.

Ukraine already has legislative experience with this approach. The Law of Ukraine dated July 16, 2024, No. 3863-IX on ensuring the consideration of administrative cases provided for inter-court automated distribution of unresolved cases of the liquidated District Administrative Court of Kyiv city.

Unresolved cases, except for exceptions directly defined by law, were distributed among other district administrative courts of Ukraine considering workload, randomness, and case receipt chronology.

Using this mechanism, nearly 20,000 unresolved cases were automatically distributed among district administrative courts.

Key criteria were court workload, randomness, and case receipt chronology, not the territorial connection of a specific case.

This approach is viewed as a tool to increase judicial process efficiency, potentially contributing to a more balanced distribution of judicial resources, optimizing case consideration timelines, and strengthening guarantees of impartiality and protection of the automated distribution mechanism from possible interference.

Introducing inter-court distribution aligns with the approved Concept of the Unified Judicial Information and Communication System (hereinafter – USICS). The Concept, approved by the SJA Ukraine order dated April 30, 2025, No. 178, provides for a "Centralized Auto-Distribution" component. The IT solutions development roadmap in the judicial system was approved by the SJA Ukraine order dated December 2, 2024, No. 534 (with amendments); it envisages designing, developing, testing, and implementing relevant services within the case management system. Thus, preparation of the technical basis for centralized distribution is already included in official plans for judicial IT solutions development.

V. Procedural and technical prerequisites for inter-court distribution

The current state of procedural legislation and development of electronic judicial tools create prerequisites for gradual departure from absolute territorial attachment of certain case categories.

Firstly, a significant part of court sessions can be held via videoconference. This format has already become a common procedural tool, especially under martial law, participant relocation, courts operating in regions with varying security burdens, and active use of USICS subsystems.

Secondly, there are case categories for which physical participation of parties is not required or mandatory: civil and commercial order proceedings, administrative cases in written proceedings, and certain civil cases in simplified proceedings without summoning parties.

According to SJA Ukraine judicial statistics for 2025 (forms No. 1-c, No. 1-oas, No. 1-g), courts considered 374,166 applications in civil order proceedings, 244,630 administrative cases in written proceedings, and 11,550 applications in commercial order proceedings – a total of 630,346 cases and applications in procedures not requiring court sessions. Of civil order applications, 341,219 (91.2%) concerned debts for housing and communal, telecommunications services, television, and radio broadcasting; 62.7% of all resolved administrative cases were considered in writing. Additionally, 431,318 of 667,970 civil claim cases (64.6%) were considered in simplified proceedings. The latter figure is a potential reserve for subsequent stages, as form No. 1-c does not differentiate cases considered with or without summoning parties.

Criminal proceedings are advisable to exclude initially from the inter-court distribution model due to their procedural nature, enhanced guarantees of direct evidence examination, and special requirements for party participation.

VI. Rules for inter-court automated case distribution

A transparent centralized algorithm within USICS must be introduced. It should first determine the court within the relevant specialization and instance considering normative workload per authorized judge, backlog of unresolved cases, new arrivals, and staffing capacity, and then assign a judge or panel according to general automated distribution rules. The algorithm’s rules and parameters must be predetermined and available for audit, and all actions logged without manual intervention.

The first stage should be limited to case categories legally considered without court sessions or fully in writing:

1) civil order proceedings, primarily mass uncontested claims for debt recovery for housing and communal and telecommunications services;

2) administrative cases considered in writing according to law;

3) commercial order proceedings.

After evaluating this stage’s results, the list may be expanded to:

1) civil cases in simplified claim proceedings that by law can be considered without summoning parties and do not require direct evidence examination;

2) other case categories directly defined by law if technical and procedural possibilities for remote consideration exist.

This approach will allow:

1) leveling workload between courts and judges considering the actual number of authorized judges, specialization, and normative case consideration time;

2) reducing case consideration times in the most overloaded courts;

3) ensuring more equal access to justice for citizens regardless of region;

4) decreasing complaints related to prolonged case non-consideration;

5) reducing system dependence on constant judge secondments as a temporary tool to respond to overloads;

6) more effective use of available judicial resources without waiting for all vacancies to be filled;

7) directing written, order, and simplified cases to courts where they can be considered faster;

8) fuller use of electronic court, videoconferencing, electronic document flow, and centralized workload data;

9) implementing the centralized auto-distribution provided by the USICS Concept;

10) increasing judiciary system resilience amid war, population displacement, and uneven security burdens;

11) reducing risks of local influence through centralized algorithm and independent audit.

VII. Need for changes in current Ukrainian legislation

Current rules of territorial jurisdiction are enshrined in procedural legislation, so implementing inter-court automated distribution considering workload requires amendments at least to the Law of Ukraine "On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges," the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.

We believe that amendments to current Ukrainian legislation should provide for:

1) the possibility of inter-court automated distribution of case categories defined by law between courts of the same specialization and instance;

2) exhaustive and objective criteria for assigning cases to such distribution considering procedural form of their consideration;

3) guarantees of participants' rights to access justice, evidence submission, participation in court sessions via videoconference, and receipt of procedural documents;

4) mandatory automated determination of the court, and then the judge or panel within USICS;

5) mandatory consideration of normative workload per authorized judge, specialization, instance, and court staffing capacity;

6) prohibition of manual selection of case, court, judge, or changing distribution results, as well as mandatory logging and independent audit of the algorithm;

7) possibility of phased or pilot implementation of such a model.

Considering the above and paragraph 5 of part one of Article 73 of the Law of Ukraine "On the High Council of Justice," the High Council of Justice proposes the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Legal Policy to consider the feasibility of developing legislative amendments for phased introduction of inter-court automated case distribution considering workload between courts of the same specialization and instance.

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.