Judiciary of Ukraine

Since 2014, Ukraine has allowed videotaping of court sessions without obtaining the specific permission of the judge, within the limitations established by law.

[6] Prior judges were appointed by presidential decree for a period of five years, after which the Ukrainian parliament confirmed them for life in an attempt to insulate them from politics.

[6] After judicial reforms, there was, effectively, a hiring freeze, which increased case backlog and caused a dearth of 2,600 judges, about a third of the judiciary, as they retired or were dismissed.

[22] Ukrainian law allows jurors to hear only those criminal cases where the sentence can reach life imprisonment.

[26] The High Judicial Qualifications Commission of Ukraine conducts the selection of judicial candidates, submits to the High Council of Justice recommendations on the appointment of a candidate for the subsequent introduction of the submission of the President of Ukraine, makes recommendations on the election of a permanent post, and conducts disciplinary proceedings including dismissal.

[27] The High Council of Justice "is a collective independent body that is responsible for formation of the high-profile judge corpus capable of qualified, honest and impartial exercise of justice on a professional basis; and for making decisions regarding violations by judges and procurators of the requirements concerning their incompatibility and within the scope of their competence of their disciplinary responsibility".

Three members of the council are automatically assigned for holding the following positions: Chairman of the Supreme Court, Minister of Justice, and Prosecutor General.

[28] The 2010 Judicial System and Status of Judges Act is the legal basis for the organization of the judiciary and the administration of justice in Ukraine.

[31] Ukrainian politicians and analysts have described the system of justice in Ukraine as "rotten to the core" and have complained about political pressure put on judges and corruption.

[34] Independent lawyers and human rights activists have complained Ukrainian judges regularly come under pressure to hand down a certain verdict.

[40][41] The event took place soon after a decision was adopted by the Holosiivsky District Court of Kyiv City on the 2011-12 nationally renown Pavlichenko criminal case convicting a family of Pavlichenkos (father and son) to long-term sentence for killing a judge of the Shevskivsky District Court of Kyiv City Serhiy Zubkov.

[42] On 24 February 2014 the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine's parliament) decided to release all political prisoners, including father and son Pavlichenko.

Lawyers have stated trial results can be unfairly fixed, with judges commonly refusing to hear exculpatory evidence, while calling frequent recesses to confer privately with the prosecutor.

Fee amounts depend on jurisdiction, the crime, real or trumped-up, and the financial wherewithal of the individual or company involved.

[31][32] The Prosecutor-General's Office – part of the government – exerted undue influence, with judges often not daring to rule against state prosecutors.

Those who did faced disciplinary actions; when a Kyiv court ruled for opposition politician Yulia Tymoshenko, the presiding judge was himself prosecuted.

President Viktor Yanukovych formed an expert group to make recommendations how to "clean up the current mess and adopt a law on court organization” on March 24, 2010.

[31] One day after setting this commission Yanukovych stated “We can no longer disgrace our country with such a court system.”[31] In December 2011 certain economic crimes were decriminalized.

[44][45] Concrete steps the Azarov Government proposed the abolition of pre-trial detention for non-violent crimes, promoting experienced judges with strong records and punishing bribe-taking and corruption in the judiciary.

This bill established the legal and organizational framework for a special audit of judges of courts of general jurisdiction.

[50] The Kyiv Administrative District Court was disestablished in December 2022 due to its alleged corruption and powerful jurisdiction over national government agencies.