Requested by: Ukraine, Parliament, Speaker

Recommended Measures:
The Venice Commission is faced with a dilemma: on the one hand there is a real need for a “quick fix” for the High Qualification Commission of Judges so that - hopefully - judicial vacancies can be filled as soon as possible, and, on the other hand, it has to be ensured that an HQCJ without doubts of integrity be established for that purpose. The Venice Commission can accept the idea of a “quick fix” because (a) the Competition Committee should ensure the integrity of the HQCJ before it commences its work, and (b) elements in in draft Law No. 3711 that would subject the HQCJ to the HCJ should be removed. In view of this urgency, draft Law No. 3711 should remain strictly limited to the re-establishment of the HQCJ and the integration of the judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, which is necessary due to decision No. 4-p/2020 of 11 March 2020 of the Constitutional Court. Draft Law No. 3711 as it was presented covers these topics, but it goes much further than these urgent needs as it also fully subordinates the HQCJ to the HCJ. However, the relationship between these two judicial governance bodies is a complex topic and this issue should be addressed only in the framework of a wider reform. Therefore, these provisions should be removed and the new HQCJ should have full autonomy, like the dissolved HQCJ, especially be able to establish its own rules of procedure. The new HQCJ should build on the work of its predecessor and it should be free from interference from the HCJ. While this is not covered in draft Law No. 3711, the issue of the integrity and ethics of the HCJ should be addressed as a matter of urgency as well. The new HQCJ members need of course to be carefully selected before they commence with their tasks. Draft Law No. 3711 maintains a mixed national / international body, the Competition Committee for the selection of the new members of the HQCJ. This follows the successful model chosen for the Anti-Corruption Court and is welcome. The current draft however widens the scope of bodies which can nominate international experts. Instead the circle of possible nominating entities should remain as narrow as with the Anti-Corruption Court. The Venice Commission recommends granting nomination powers only to those entities who traditionally co-operate with the Ukraine in the field of the judiciary and have already concluded agreements on such co-operation. There should be a formal request addressed to those international entities to make nominations. As already pointed out in the 2019 Opinion, the sequencing of changes is important. This joint opinion cannot deal with the wider reforms and provides only a few reflections on questions the integrity of the members of judiciary, including the HCJ. The long-term goal of a merger of the HCJ and the HQCJ should be the final point only of such reforms, once (a) the current problems of appointments are settled thorough draft law No. 3711 (b) issues of integrity in the judiciary, including the HCJ are settled.