Problem

The transparency of the review of disciplinary complaints, disciplinary proceedings against judges, as well as the revision of decisions of the Disciplinary Chambers of the High Council of Justice remains insufficient, which reduces the credibility of the relevant bodies. Some of the grounds for bringing judges to disciplinary liability are not defined clearly enough to allow judges to predict their behavior. The relevant GRECO recommendation remains to be implemented.
In practice, there are cases when judges subject to disciplinary proceedings are dismissed from office on the basis of resignations before the proceedings are finalized. There are also no effective mechanisms for maintaining high standards of conduct by retired judges due to the limited range of grounds for termination of their retired judge status.
Dismissal of a judge from office due to failure to confirm the legality of the sources of assets is possible only as a result of disciplinary proceedings, although after the adoption of the Law of Ukraine dated June 2, 2016, No. 1401-VIII On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine (Regarding Justice), this reason for dismissal is defined separately and it is advisable to introduce a separate procedure for verifying the legality of the sources of assets outside of disciplinary proceedings.
After the passage of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine
No. 7-r/2020 dated June 11, 2020 in the case brought by the constitutional petition of 55 Parliament members of Ukraine regarding the conformity of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality), the provision of said Code that established criminal liability for the delivery of a knowingly unjust verdict, decision, ruling or resolution has ceased to be effective. In the past, this provision had been repeatedly used in practice to influence judges, as no effective and efficient procedures had been put in place to prevent this.