Members of the High Council of Justice took part in a roundtable dedicated to issues of judicial disciplinary liability for significant violations of substantive and procedural law in the course of delivering judicial decisions.
The event, organized by the Supreme Court together with the Council of Europe project “Support to the Judiciary of Ukraine during War and in the Post-War Period”, took place on 8 September 2025.
Deputy Chair of the High Council of Justice, Oksana Kvasha, emphasized the importance of dialogue aimed at improving and unifying practice in the field of judicial disciplinary liability. According to her, the need for such meetings stems from the presence of a significant number of evaluative concepts in legislation. In particular, the provision of Article 106 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” concerning substantial violations of procedural law requires clear interpretation and the development of unified approaches. This will make it possible, in the future, to reduce the number of HCJ decisions overturned by the Supreme Court and ensure stability of judicial practice.
“The unification of judicial practice and decisions of the High Council of Justice on issues of judicial disciplinary liability is one of the main tasks. When we speak about guarantees of the effectiveness of the justice system and the independence of judges, we mean, above all, public trust and respect for judges,” — emphasized Oksana Kvasha.
She noted that it is necessary to maintain a reasonable balance between judicial independence as a guarantee of the rule of law and disciplinary liability as a form of accountability to society.
Member of the High Council of Justice, Oleksii Melnyk, reminded that Article 106 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” sets out 24 grounds for judicial disciplinary liability, about one-third of which directly concern the administration of justice.
He stressed that the HCJ has repeatedly emphasized in its decisions that a judge’s error in interpreting or applying the law, or in evaluating facts and evidence, in itself does not constitute grounds for disciplinary liability. At the same time, if a decision is made in disregard of clear legal provisions or established case law, this may undermine trust in justice and become grounds for holding a judge liable.
As a universal criterion for assessing such actions, the HCJ applies the provisions of Article 106, which require the presence of intent or improper attitude of a judge toward the performance of official duties. If a judge has demonstrated negligence, this may indicate grounds for disciplinary liability.
Oleksii Melnyk emphasized that complaints that merely boil down to disagreement with a court decision — when that decision has already been reviewed by higher courts or is not subject to appeal — do not serve as grounds for opening proceedings. The same applies to complaints whose arguments can be examined by higher courts.
“The task of disciplinary liability is not to correct legal mistakes but to prevent abuses and gross deviations from the law that undermine trust in the judiciary,” —he stressed.
The High Council of Justice has developed key criteria for determining the materiality of a violation: not every deviation from the law constitutes grounds for sanctions; it becomes material when it negatively affects the rights of the parties to the proceedings or leads to an unjust outcome.
When making decisions, the High Council of Justice takes into account the practice of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court as well as its own approaches. In this way, standards for assessing the actions of judges are formed. In addition, in its decisions the HCJ refers to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, since disciplinary liability must be foreseeable and should not undermine judicial independence.
Particular attention is paid to guarantees of judges’ rights in disciplinary proceedings — the right to defense, the principle of adversarial process, and the requirement for reasoned decisions. Any weakening of these guarantees may turn the disciplinary process into a tool of pressure. At the same time, sanctions are applied proportionally to the gravity of the misconduct.
Oleksii Melnyk provided statistics: in less than two years, the High Council of Justice received 28500 complaints. Of these, 17000 were reviewed, more than 500 on the merits. A total of 234 judges were held disciplinarily liable. Only 66 of them appealed the HCJ’s decisions to the Supreme Court, which overturned 12 decisions. Thus, the percentage of overturned decisions is 0.07%.
“There are no fundamental differences between the positions of the HCJ and the Supreme Court — rather, the issue lies in the reasoning of decisions. All sides approach this objectively and constructively,” — the speaker noted.
He emphasized that any institution vested with significant powers also bears great responsibility. The HCJ and the Supreme Court are working together to ensure that the disciplinary procedure both protects judges from pressure and strengthens public confidence in the judiciary. Judicial independence, he stressed, is not a personal privilege of judges but serves to guarantee the rule of law and protect citizens who rely on the courts.
The participants of the meeting raised a number of important issues requiring greater legal certainty.
In his speech, HCJ member Serhii Burlakov drew attention to the problem of assessing such a disciplinary offense as insufficient reasoning in judicial decisions — namely, the failure to indicate in a court decision the grounds for accepting or rejecting the parties’ arguments on the merits of the case (subparagraph “b” of part 1 of Article 106 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”). He also highlighted the differences in the standards of reasoning for investigative judges’ rulings and decisions on the merits of cases, both in criminal procedural law and in civil, commercial, and administrative proceedings.
HCJ member Mykola Moroz pointed out the issue of terminating the powers of judges who hold citizenship of another state, emphasizing the absence of a clear legislative mechanism to resolve this matter.
HCJ member Tetiana Bondarenko raised the issue of the admissibility of using, as evidence in disciplinary proceedings, data from a social network banned in Ukraine, stressing the need for legal certainty in this practice.
International consultants of the Council of Europe spoke at the event. In particular, Gerhard Reissner, international consultant of the Council of Europe, drew attention to Ukraine’s significant progress in the debates on the interpretation of the law, noting that the country has moved from the stage of formulating basic legal provisions to the stage of applying them in judicial practice, despite serious workloads. He emphasized the importance of the principle of proportionality in considering gross negligence in disciplinary proceedings against judges, stressing that dismissal of a judge is possible only in very serious cases, as reflected in the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the opinions of the Venice Commission.
Council of Europe international consultant and professor of law at the Complutense University of Madrid, Lorena Bachmaier Winter, expressed a positive impression of Ukraine’s substantial progress in developing judicial independence and accountability. She paid particular attention to the problem of insufficient reasoning in judicial decisions, sharing Spain’s experience. She advised giving preference to judicial independence in doubtful situations, and applying disciplinary measures only in cases of repeated violations. Lorena Bachmaier also noted that loss of citizenship is not a disciplinary offense but automatically leads to the termination of a judge’s office, as is the case in most European countries (with the exception of citizenship of other EU states). She stressed that the issue of dual citizenship depends on national legislation, giving the example that in Spain civil servants lose their status through an administrative procedure. At the same time, in Spain, failure to provide correct information about citizenship to the High Council of Justice may constitute a disciplinary offense; however, initiating proceedings in such cases is not appropriate if dismissal is inevitable.
The roundtable became an important step in discussing approaches to judicial disciplinary liability and strengthening public trust in the judiciary.
From the High Council of Justice, the participants included Yuliia Bokova, Oleh Kandziuba, Olena Kovbii, Dmytro Lukianov, Roman Maselko, Olha Popikova, as well as heads of structural units of the HCJ Secretariat – Head of the Legal Department Artem Brintsov, Deputy Head of the Department – Head of the Division for Normative and Legal Work and Preparation of Draft Advisory Opinions Oleksandra Prychko, and Head of the Division for Representation of the HCJ’s Interests in Courts Olha Belinska.