Problem

Different bodies involved in the evaluation of qualifications of judges (judicial candidates) use different approaches and different standards of proof when evaluating the integrity and professional ethics of judges or candidates. The best practices, in particular those introduced by the Public Council of International Experts, are not properly taken into account by the judicial governance bodies.
There are no requirements and properly defined procedures for evaluating judicial candidates (outside the qualification evaluation process) for compliance with the integrity criterion. The Public Integrity Council does not participate in the selection of judges outside the qualification evaluation process, to the European Parliament called attention in its resolution dated February 11, 2021 on the implementation of the Association Agreement between Ukraine, on the one hand, and the European Union, the European Atomic Energy Community and their Member States, on the other hand.
As of today, the qualification evaluation of more than 2,000 judges, as prescribed by the Constitution of Ukraine, has not been completed. There is also a significant number of vacant judicial positions, which exceeded 2,000 as of the end of 2021. The activities of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine in selecting judges and conducting qualification evaluation failed to ensure a high-quality and comprehensive evaluation of judges (candidates for judicial positions) based on the criteria of competence, integrity and professional ethics. The reasons for this were, in particular, suboptimal organizational decisions regarding certain stages of the selection and evaluation procedures.
The absence of an approved professional profile of a judge does not allow all stakeholders to form common expectations regarding the evaluation of the qualities of candidates for judicial positions, and does not contribute to an objective and impartial determination of the eligibility of judges (judicial candidates).
The system of assigning points to judges (judicial candidates) during the selection and qualification evaluation procedures by the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine is not optimal: the distribution of points between objective and subjective components is not balanced; there are no clear rules for assigning points to candidates depending on their demonstrated qualities. This also contributes to the lack of substantiation and inadequate motivation of decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, and creates unjustified excessive discretion