Summary report

How it began

My appointment was the first to follow the judicial reform that changed the rules for selecting members of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) — with the participation of the Ethics Council and international experts.

In my address to parliament and in my oath I said the main thing: I am joining the HCJ to deliver the central task of the reform — removing those who lack integrity, protecting those who have it, and appointing honest and independent professionals. And, above all, restoring trust in the courts and answering society’s enormous demand for honest justice. Full text of the address.

It is time to take stock — what worked and what did not.

The priorities

• Restoring the work of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) by appointing members selected through a fair competition.
• Restoring the procedures for appointing and qualification-assessing judges so that integrity and competence are genuinely verified.
• Effective disciplinary procedures and the creation of a disciplinary inspectors service.
• Judges who disgrace the office must be dismissed, while honest judges must receive real protection from persecution.
• A proactive stance by the HCJ in fighting corrupt schemes.
• Transparency of the HCJ’s work and digitalisation of justice.

After the appointment there was a long stretch without real powers: until 12 January 2023 the HCJ lacked a quorum altogether, and the disciplinary function was only restored in December 2023. Once full-scale work began, I tried to use every hour. I started at 8:30 and rarely finished before 21:00. My last request was sent on 14 August at 23:15 — 45 minutes before my term ended. In four years I took no more than 20 days of leave. I stayed in shape thanks to cycling: 18 km to work and back every day, except in winter.

Electing the HQCJ and unified integrity indicators

The first significant result was the election of the HQCJ. Not everyone I voted for became a member, and some I voted against did — but I believe the outcome was worthy and the new composition shows decent results. It could have been better, and there is much to criticise, but this is a new quality. Resistance to their work was quite powerful too: SBI searches as soon as they began reviewing the Pechersk court and the Kyiv District Administrative Court, and attacks from the Vlasenko–Buzhanskyi temporary investigative commission because many candidates were screened out.

Another important milestone was the approval of the Unified Integrity Indicators. This created the preconditions for a uniform understanding of evaluative concepts in integrity checks. Now it is important to build consistent practice in applying them.

Judicial appointments and qualification assessment

Once the HQCJ was restored, competitive procedures and qualification assessment of sitting judges resumed. Active appointments began in 2024. In a little over two and a half years the HCJ submitted 761 judges for appointment; 10 were refused.

I handled 53 HQCJ recommendations on appointing candidates to first-instance and appellate courts. I issued opinions in favour of 45 of them. In 8 cases I had well-founded doubts about their integrity and proposed refusal. In 4 cases my colleagues supported me (Zhuk, Vikhrov, Bessonov, Savchuk); in the other 4 they did not (Kataieva, Nikolenko, Bielousov, Yasynovskyi).

The refusals in the Zhuk case (anti-Ukrainian posts) and the Vikhrov case were significant. Notably, after the Vikhrov refusal I began to be persecuted: the Zakarpattia regional bar qualification and disciplinary commission issued me a reprimand on a complaint from the Bar Association. The HCJ recognised this as interference with my work four times, and the court annulled that decision as unlawful.

Following qualification assessment of sitting judges, the HQCJ submitted 156 of them for appointment. Twelve came to me. Only in the case of Judge Novytskyi of the Baranivka District Court of Zhytomyr region did I conclude that appointment should be refused: the judge could not dispel doubts about insufficient funds to buy a house, and evidently lied about using a Tesla. However, no decision was ever taken, because on the day it was due he fell ill. In parallel I filed the relevant referrals to the NACP and the HQCJ to check the discrepancies I had found.

As for judges found unfit for office, the HQCJ submitted 70 for dismissal. Only 3 such submissions were allocated to me (Sharko, Verheles and Vasylieva), but the HCJ returned them without consideration: Sharko and Verheles had already been dismissed on other grounds, and the submission was quashed by the Supreme Court.

The disciplinary inspectors service

I consider the launch of the disciplinary inspectors service a good result. I took an active part in drafting the legislative amendments and believe that thanks to them the institution of disciplinary inspectors started working genuinely and effectively. The inspectors passed a very demanding competition, have real functional independence and can process disciplinary complaints to a higher standard. I see this as a step forward for disciplinary practice — though of course not everything is perfect and there are critical remarks about their work as well. In particular, I would like priority complaints to be handled faster.

Disciplinary practice

I devoted the most time and resources to disciplinary practice. My colleagues also elected me secretary of the Second Disciplinary Chamber, so my duties included organising its work and chairing it. We sat every Wednesday and held 130 sittings in total.

From November 2023 to December 2024 HCJ members performed the function of disciplinary inspectors. In that time I reviewed 616 complaints, of which proceedings were opened in 53. That looks modest, around 9%, but the HCJ average for opening proceedings is 5%.

These complaints resulted in disciplinary liability for 35 judges, 7 of whom were recommended for dismissal — the highest figure among all HCJ members. The most notable cases were those of the traitor judge Ukhanova, and of Varniak, Mykytenko, Lesko and Kozina.

At the same time my proposals to open proceedings or impose liability were quite often rejected. Our chamber frequently had sharp debates about whether grounds for liability existed. This was especially visible when Vitalii Salikhov — now head of the Council of Judges of Ukraine — was also a member of the chamber. On the upside, broadcasts of our chamber’s sittings drew the largest audiences. One striking example was the case of Judge Kovhanych who, hiding behind his judicial ID and behaving arrogantly, simply refused to comply with a police officer’s demand and drove away from a speeding stop, running over the officer’s foot in the process. I proposed dismissal, while my colleagues saw no violation at all and closed the case.

There were also cases where I was simply recused on dubious grounds — for example, in the case of Judge Vovk.

After the disciplinary inspectors began work, 743 opinions were allocated to me. Among others, I was co-rapporteur in the cases of judges Artymovych, Makharynets, Harnyk and Kitov.

In total I was rapporteur or co-rapporteur in 1,323 cases. Disciplinary cases were opened against 97 judges. Fifty-five judges were held liable, 13 of them with submissions for dismissal.

In addition, the submission to dismiss Judge V. V. Mazurenko was made on my initiative in a case where another HCJ member was the rapporteur.

Notably, most of the chamber’s decisions in which I was rapporteur or co-rapporteur were not appealed by the judges at all (18). Of those appealed, only 1 was quashed by the HCJ; 2 more were upheld by the HCJ but quashed by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. The HCJ quashed or amended only 8 decisions of the Second Disciplinary Chamber in which I took part. Overall, the Grand Chamber quashed only 3 decisions where I was the rapporteur and drafted the decision (judges Vovk, Zdorovytsia, Hnyp).

Over 2 years and 9 months under my chairmanship the Second Disciplinary Chamber achieved the following: as of August 2026 it had reviewed 6,750 complaints, opened 281 disciplinary cases and held 134 judges liable, 40 of them with submissions for dismissal.

It was the second chamber that submitted for dismissal 4 judges of the Kyiv Court of Appeal (Dziubin, Palenyk, Slyva, Hlynianyi), as well as judges Tandyr, Ivinskyi, Lipchanskyi and others.

Cases opened on the chamber’s own initiative

I strongly supported the idea that the HCJ cannot turn a blind eye to judicial violations it discovers itself, especially blatant ones. So I often proposed opening disciplinary cases on the chamber’s own initiative. It started with the case of Judge Kozina, which exposed an entire scheme of dubious recognition of births on Ukrainian territory based on documents bearing signs of forgery. The judge was dismissed, and criminal proceedings were registered on the basis of the chamber’s findings. Then came the cases of judges Bahrii, Shevska, Timoshenko, Boiko, Mazurenko, Vedianina, Daruda, Bondar, Tserkovna, Ostropilets, Filipieva, Bratkiv, Chekhov, Vasylenko, Prytula, Snihurskyi, Ivanytskyi, Malekh and Ivinskyi.

Since December 2023 the HCJ disciplinary chambers have reviewed 20,692 complaints, opened 809 cases and held 353 judges liable, 109 of them with submissions for dismissal.

I also reviewed appeals against decisions of the disciplinary chambers — there were few, 6. The Ariestova case mattered. Journalists found that the judge held a Russian passport, which she denied throughout. Importantly, the HCJ accepted that journalistic investigation and public data, including from Russian sources, may be used to prove Russian citizenship. That matters where official confirmation is impossible — something the judge relied on. The position was later confirmed by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court.

In two further cases I was not the rapporteur, but the decision was taken on my proposal — regarding Halionkin and Yaselskyi. Halionkin was captured on NABU recordings trying to influence judges to help a colleague’s son escape liability for drunk driving. The disciplinary chamber gave him only a severe reprimand; I proposed dismissal. Judge Yaselskyi spent more than 7 years hearing the case of the Berkut commander whose unit shot protesters during the peaceful march of 18 February 2014. Because of the delays the case was closed, and more than 70 victims felt that justice in such an important case had not been done. On my initiative the Council changed the sanction to suspension from administering justice and referral for qualification assessment. All these decisions withstood review by the Grand Chamber.

Measures to safeguard the authority of justice

I consider an important practice I managed to establish at the HCJ to be taking measures to safeguard the authority of justice on the Council’s own initiative. The first was a public address to judges on zero tolerance for corrupt conduct by colleagues. The trigger was the situation with Judge Lonskyi, who discussed with a lawyer how to systematically arrange decisions in cases for bribes.

The HCJ also began responding to schemes that use court decisions built on artificial cases: the mass recognition of births of foreigners’ relatives on Ukrainian territory in order to obtain citizenship, uncovered while reviewing the complaint against Judge Kozina. The HCJ responded to Judge Makharynets forging a document to avoid liability for drunk driving, to document forgery by a judicial assistant at the Solomianskyi District Court of Kyiv, and to the disappearance of a case file at the Pechersk court concerning judge Kyrylo Harnyk’s refusal to undergo sobriety testing.

One cannot omit the response to what is probably the largest scheme of fictitious decisions on children’s place of residence and deprivation of parental rights, at the Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi court. When I learned of it in 2024 I was so struck by its scale and audacity that I immediately filed a crime report with NABU. When those involved were exposed in 2025, it became clear that a large number of the court’s staff and judges were operating within it as a criminal organisation. Unfortunately, signs of such schemes exist not only in that court but across Ukraine. We therefore required all courts to collect and submit detailed information on these cases to the HCJ, and instructed the State Judicial Administration to develop monitoring tools that flag risk indicators automatically. The number of such cases has since dropped sharply, and more than 50 disciplinary cases are pending before the HCJ. Over 10 judges have been held liable, including dismissals.

Transparency of the HCJ’s work

I invested a great deal of effort in transparency, analytical capacity and digitalisation of the HCJ’s work, and I believe there are real achievements here. It began with restoring broadcasts of HCJ sittings. Then came legislative amendments requiring broadcasts of HCJ sittings and of the chambers’ disciplinary cases. The Second Disciplinary Chamber decided on its own to broadcast all of its sittings in full.

When I joined the HCJ, voting was anonymous. Then the HCJ listened to civil society and held a roll-call vote on HQCJ members. Later we managed to persuade parliament to amend the law — and now all votes at the HCJ are open and by name.

Publication of reports on the automated allocation of cases also mattered for transparency.

The first internal memo I wrote at the HCJ concerned access to state registers. The law entitles HCJ members to full access, but in practice in 2023 access existed only to the Register of Court Decisions. Today we have access to almost all registers that matter for integrity checks — nearly on par with NABU. Moreover, we set up a dedicated analytical unit that compiles the most complete information on every candidate for judicial office.

My legislative initiative allowing every HCJ member to send requests in all cases where they will vote was also important. Previously this was possible only where you were the rapporteur. I used this right very often and sent hundreds of requests in cases where other members were rapporteurs. It allowed information needed for decisions to be gathered more objectively and completely.

Digitalisation and the UJITS

One of the most important areas of my work at the HCJ was digitalisation. I chaired the Standing Committee on the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS/ЄСІКС) and put much effort into coordinating its development (the Electronic Court). I want to thank Denys Maslov who, as chair of the Legal Policy Committee, was one of the main allies and drivers of judicial digitalisation. We co-chaired a working group that met almost every second Friday to review progress. Thanks to this coordination we developed the UJITS concept and prepared the key technical documents.

Unfortunately, the force majeure of USAID — which funded the development — ceasing operations cost us almost a year and blocked development of new modules. But thanks to a new donor, SIDA, and the Laboratory of Legislative Initiatives NGO, work has resumed, and everything is now ready to start building the first UJITS modules.

I want to note the special role of Ihor Bilyk, whose deep expertise and inexhaustible enthusiasm ensured high-quality technical documentation and laid the groundwork for many useful ideas on optimising and configuring processes. In particular, we began working actively on adopting AI and drafted the HCJ Digitalisation Strategy.

Many processes inside the HCJ itself still need digitalising. It is embarrassing to admit, but most HCJ decisions are signed the old-fashioned way — with a pen. Only my chamber introduced signing all decisions with a qualified electronic signature. Twice I filed memos proposing amendments to internal regulations to move to digital document flow. So far without result — primarily because the secretariat lacks specialists able to organise a wholesale transition. So I am glad that after two years of persuasion I finally secured the leadership’s support for creating the position of deputy head of the secretariat for digital transformation. Recruitment is under way.

But digitalisation depends not only on having the right software and tools — it depends on willingness. The HCJ runs the D3 electronic document management system, which allows a great deal to be done electronically. For instance, I handled all cases exclusively in electronic form and did not sign a single request or letter on paper. In total I made 2,885 requests, letters and referrals electronically.

I believe many problems in the judiciary, in particular excessive workload, must be solved systemically — including through technology. So I am glad the HCJ supported my idea of inter-court case allocation, which provides for centrally distributing cases to courts with lighter caseloads.

In recent months we worked actively on exploring the adoption of AI in HCJ processes. Together with BRDO we built an AI tool for analysing disciplinary practice, reviewed procedures, met Microsoft about using their AI solutions, and are drafting principles for the use of AI. Overall, I believe AI has reached the level where it can certainly serve as a judge’s assistant in checking evidence, studying the parties’ arguments and preparing draft decisions. Moreover, I believe AI can genuinely ensure both the consistency and the evolution of case law in line with today’s realities. So AI is a must-have in the new UJITS.

It matters greatly that on the penultimate day of my term the HCJ approved the Strategy of the High Council of Justice for 2026–2030, which I actively helped develop and which was drafted with the participation of the Netherlands Council for the Judiciary. I particularly like that the HCJ took on the responsibility of leading qualitative change in the judiciary. The strategy devotes much attention to access to justice through digital technologies — and to building a genuine culture of integrity, where you are honest not because of a prohibition or a rule, but because of values and an environment in which integrity is natural and successful.

Information campaigns and pushback

Almost every day I could read some new manipulation, falsehood or attempt to humiliate me on various anonymous Telegram channels. Some lawyers even ran a countdown to the end of my term. But there was also overt interference by entirely specific and influential people and institutions. In particular, for the first time in Ukraine’s history an HCJ member was punished as an advocate for doing his job and questioning judicial candidate Vikhrov. All of it only made me more certain I was on the right path.

Collegiality and the team

It is important to note that the HCJ is a collegial body, and any decision is the result of a vote by at least a majority of the Council or the chamber. So all achievements are collective. On the other hand, much could not be delivered because I failed to persuade a majority of my colleagues.

I also want to say that I could not have done much without my assistants — Olha Osaulenko, Vasyl Vasylash and Ihor Bilyk. Incidentally, Vasyl Mykhailovych is my former lecturer; I could not have imagined we would one day work together. I want to single out Ihor Bilyk: everyone at the HCJ knows he is the greatest expert when it comes to technology and AI. In his free time he built genuinely useful IT tools of his own (condemno.com, one, two). Most importantly, he has a full understanding and vision of how to transform the HCJ into a genuine leader in digitalisation. So I am glad he applied, and I sincerely wish him success in the new competition for the HCJ under the parliamentary quota.

What did not work out

Naturally, in a collegial body of 19 members with very different views on how to solve particular problems, it is hard for anyone to implement personal approaches. But that is the point — one must seek a considered, balanced, compromise solution while sharing the main goals, principles and values, and an understanding of one’s mission, society’s expectations and the state’s needs.

It seems to me that this HCJ did not always act as it should have: there were mistakes and serious shortcomings, and we did not use every opportunity. Some actions should have been more decisive, the messages clearer, the position more principled. We should have become leaders of reform and positive change in the judiciary, and the guarantee of both the independence and the accountability of judicial power. We should have been the first to embody the integrity indicators and to set an example. We should have resolved proper judicial remuneration for first-instance judges and optimised workloads. We should have raised trust in the judiciary and spoken with the other branches of power as equals. We have not become that yet.

But this HCJ certainly did not cross red lines, and it laid a worthy foundation for future change. This is no longer the beginning of the road, but not the middle either. So it is important to preserve and consolidate the gains, keep building a genuine culture of integrity, work on improving access to justice and strengthen trust in the courts. This is a task not only for the HCJ — much depends on the other branches of power. In particular, it is important to preserve the current procedure for selecting HCJ and HQCJ members, to finally define and optimise the court network, to introduce centralised case allocation and support maximum digitalisation of court processes, to pay judicial remuneration as the law requires — at least to first-instance judges — and to treat the judiciary as an equal.