Читати українською
Strategy Action plan
Action plan
Chapter 2
Action plan for
Chapter 2

Increasing Competence of Judiciary

Improvement of competence in the judiciary will be encouraged by way of reform of the career and performance management system, and strengthening of the initial and continuous training systems, notably though the redefined role of the National School of Judges of Ukraine (NSJ) as part of the judiciary. Competitions will be held in cases of appointment to a particular judicial post on the basis of the new performance management system, while making sure that judges are also evaluated and promoted on the basis of the same, transparent, merits-based, score-based criteria. Effective mechanism will be set up to carry out planned, result-oriented, audits of judges and courts, conduct the general review by the judiciary of implementation of its quality policy, investigate individual complaints. Moreover, user satisfaction surveys will be used as part of the new performance management system, thereby allowing the public to have assay in how the judiciary evaluates its performance. Mechanisms are also proposed to seek greater uniformity of practice through strengthened research and analysis capacities of the Supreme Court of Ukraine (SC) and higher specialised courts.

Shortcuts
  • ADR
    Alternative dispute resolution
  • AP
    Action Plan
  • APU/PAU
    Presidential Administration of Ukraine
  • ASSETBTC
    Bar Training Centre
  • CB
    Chamber of Bailiffs
  • CC
    Constitutional Court
  • ВНЗ
    Вищі навчальні заклади
  • CCBE
    Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe
  • CCLAP
    Coordination Centre for Legal Aid Provision
  • CEIS
    Criminal Executive Inspection
  • CEPEJ
    European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice
  • CJ/CoJ
    Council of Judges of Ukraine
  • CJR/JRS
    Council for Justice Reform (or Justice Reform Council)
  • CoE CM
    CoE Committee of Ministers
  • CoE/CoE
    Council of Europe
  • CP
    Council of Prosecutors
  • CPE
    Performance Evaluation Framework
  • CSO
    Civil society organizations
  • DCMIS
    Detainee case management system
  • DFATD
    Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, Canada
  • DG Just
    Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers of the European Commision
  • DOJ
    United States Department of Justice
  • EaP
    The Eastern Partnership
  • ECHR
    European Convention on Human Rights
  • ECJ
    European Court of Justice
  • ECtHR
    European Court of Human Rights
  • EPP
    Evaluation of Prosecutors’ Performance
  • EU MS
    EU Member State(s)
  • EU
    European Union
  • EUAM
    European Union Advisory Mission for Civilian Security Sector Reform Ukraine
  • FLA
    Free Legal Aid
  • FoI
    Freedom of information
  • GDP
    Gross domestic product
  • GOU/GoU
    Government of Ukraine
  • HAC
    Higher Administrative Court
  • HCCH
    Hague Conference on private international law
  • HCJ
    High Council of Justice of Ukraine
  • HEI
    High educational institutions
  • PCF
    CoE/EU Eastern Partnership Programmatic Co-operation Framework
  • PDP
    Personal data protection
  • PEE
    Performance effectiveness evaluation
  • PEO
    Private enforcement officer
  • PFM
    Public financial management
  • PG
    Prosecutor General
  • PMF
    Performance Management Framework
  • PPO
    Public Prosecutor’s Office
  • PPP
    Public-private partnership
  • PR
    Public Relations
  • QALA
    Quality and Accessible Legal Aid Ukraine Project
  • RBC
    Regional Bar Council
  • RPO
    Regional Prosecutor’s Office
  • PQDCs
    Regional Qualification and Disciplinary Commission
  • SC
    Supreme Court
  • SDP
    Strategic development plans
  • SEP
    Sector expenditure plan
  • HELP
    European Programme on Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals
  • HQC
    High Qualification Commission
  • HQDC
    Higher Qualification and Disciplinary Commission
  • HR
    Human Resources
  • HRTF
    Human Rights Trust Fund
  • HSC
    Higher Specialised Court
  • IMF
    International Monetary Fund
  • IMS
    Information management system
  • IOP
    Interoperability
  • INL
    US Department of State Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
  • IRZ
    German Foundation for International Legal Cooperation
  • IS
    Information system
  • ISD
    Internal Security Department
  • JC
    see CJ
  • JIT
    Joint investigative team
  • JSRS
    Justice Sector Reform Strategy
  • LPO
    Local Prosecutor’s Office
  • LPP
    Legal Professional Privilege
  • M&E;
    Monitoring and evaluation
  • MIS
    Management information system
  • MOE
    Ministry of Education of Ukraine
  • MOF
    Ministry of Finance of Ukraine
  • MOH
    Ministry of Health of Ukraine
  • MoI/MoIA
    Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine
  • MOJ/MoJ
    Ministry of Justice of Ukraine
  • MOR
    Ministry of Regional Development, Construction, and Communal Living of Ukraine
  • MOU
    Memorandum of Understanding
  • MSP
    Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine
  • MTBF
    Medium-term budgetary framework
  • NACB
    National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine
  • NALS
    National Academy of Legal Science of Ukraine
  • NAPU
    National Academy of Prosecutors of Ukraine
  • NBC
    National Bar Council
  • NCP
    National Conference of Prosecutors
  • NPM
    National Preventive Mechanism
  • NSJ
    National School of Judges
  • OSCE
    Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
  • SGS
    Self-governance system
  • SGUA
    Support Group for Ukraine
  • SIT
    Special investigative techniques
  • SJA
    State Judicial Administration of Ukraine
  • SJGB
    Single Judiciary Governance Body
  • SLA
    Service-level agreements
  • SOP
    Standard operating procedures
  • SPS
    State Penitentiary Service of Ukraine
  • SSU
    Security Service of Ukraine
  • TC
    Training Centre
  • THB
    Trafficking in human beings
  • TOT
    Training of trainers
  • UNBA
    Ukrainian National Bar Association
  • USAID
    United States Agency for International Development
  • USAID FAIR
    The FAIR Justice Project of USAID
  • VET
    Vocational educational training
  • WG
    Working Group
ActionImplementation DeadlinePerformance Criteria
End of 2016End of 2018End of 2020Measures/OutputsResponsible Body / MeansOutcomes
Area of Intervention 2.1
Increased Competence though Improved Career and Performance Management
2.1.1 Development of performance standards and evaluation system with linkages to careers of all judges and courts staff1. Court Performance Evaluation Framework (CPE) approved, harmonising performance standards for all courts. Staff assigned to apply CPESJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), HSCs / Decisions, reports, practice guides, contracts, job descriptions, placement plans, trainings- Targets redefined for whole judiciary/separate jurisdiction, particular court, judge, members of courts staff

- Quantitative and qualitative, inter-linked and comparable, set of performance criteria in place for all judges, courts and judiciary
self-governance bodies to control and measure performance, taking into account wider strategic frameworks

- Merits and score-based career and performance management system

- ‘Qualifying certification’ system of judges and of their regular assessment in place, introducing statutory requirement of increasing
competence as one of main criteria for promotion

- Competitions based on clear, transparent and objective criteria and procedures held in all cases of filling particular post

- Optimised number of judicial governance bodies in charge of career, performance management and disciplinary liability matters

- Harmonised and automated business processes,

using research and analysis and risk management tools in all career and performance management matters

- Accessible and consistent practice of judiciary governance bodies in career and performance management matters

- User satisfaction surveys used regularly by judiciary governance bodies and courts to measure and improve performance management system

2. Reviewed quality policy and expanded performance standards under CPESJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), HSCs / Decisions, reports rulebooks, practice guides
3. Reviewed job descriptions and policies for filing all positions in each court by reference to CPESJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), HSCs / Decisions, reports rulebooks, practice guides
4. Piloting of new performance management system in all courtsSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), HSCs / Decisions, reports
5. Reviewed written rules for appointments (to each judicial post), re-assignments (transfers to another court) and promotions developed on basis of pilot experience, with clear, transparent and objective criteria and proceduresSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), MOJ, Parliament, HSCs / Decisions, statutes and rules amended, reports rulebooks, practice guides
6. Research and analysis, risk assessment reports produced on basis of statistics by use of new HR softwareCJ, HQC, HSCs /Reports
7. User satisfaction surveys conducted regularly in all courts as part of new performance management systemCJ, HCJ,HQC, HSCs / Decisions, Reports
8. Practice guides and training modules on performance management system developed, disseminated and updated regularlyNSJ, CJ, HCJ, HQC, HSCs / Decisions, trainings, publications
2.1.2 Development of internal oversight mechanisms1. Reviewed regulatory framework on role and powers of judicial inspectorsHCJ, HQC, MOJ, Parliament / Decisions, statutes and rules amended- Effective internal oversight mechanism carrying out planned, results-oriented, audits of activities of judges and courts,

- Mixture of discussion-based and incentive/repression-based approaches in performance management system

- Risk management integrated and used as judiciary governance and management tool

2. Mediators fully operational, charged with resolving disputes within courts and among courts staffCJ, HCJ, HQC, HSCs / Decisions, reports, rulebooks, practice guides
3. Risk assessment reports produced regularly, recommending improvements in judiciary governance and managementCJ, HCJ, HQC. High Courts / Decisions, reports
Area of Intervention 2.2
Increased Competence though Improved Professional Training System
2.2.1 Development of initial training (IT) system1. Reviewed statutory role of National School of Justice (NSJ) as part of judiciary and sole provider of initial training.NSJ, CJ, HCJ, HQC, MOJ, Parliament / Decisions, statutes and rules amended- Required IT period extended

- Efficient mechanism for scrutinising information about judicial candidate from point of view of experience, competence, integrity and
other qualities

- NSJ and judiciary fully capable of developing initial training curricula autonomously from other justice sector actors and donors

- Problem-based approach to teaching

- Key initial training subjects include methods of interpretation of law, burden and formalised standards of proof in various types of
process, jurisprudence as source of law, reasoning of decisions, oratory skills, professional ethics and disciplinary matters, information
technologies, psychology

- Initial training courses of judges other legal professionals (prosecutors, lawyers etc.) approximated, some curricula and courses
harmonised

- Institutionalised linkages between initial training and judicial appointments systems

- Permanent pool of trainers, including trainers from regions, fully and regularly mobilised

- Experienced legal practitioners, including Supreme Court and other higher courts judges, European and international counterparts, among
regular trainers

- Improved process and conditions of involving professional judges as a trainers at NSJ.

2. Requirements for length of training, experience, competence, integrity and other conditions for becoming judicial candidate reviewedNSJ, HQC, MOJ, Parliament / Decisions, statutes and rules amended
3. Separate IT curricula, including distance learning courses, developed, updated regularly and placed in electronic librariesNSJ, HQC / Decisions, reports, publications
4. Training needs, capacity and quality assessment mechanisms in place and used, including automated toolsNSJ, HQC / Decisions, practice guides, software in place, trainings
5. Trainer selection and preparation system, including training of trainers (TOT) approach, in place and appliedNSJ, HQC / Decisions, MOUs, practice guides, software in place, trainings
2.2.2 Development of continuing training (CT) system1. Mandatory CT period diversified for judges and court staff depending on their roles and experience.NSJ, CJ, HCJ, MOJ, Parliament / Decisions, statutes and rules amended- Continuous training participation as one of key parameters in judiciary performance management system

- Individualised approach to CT applied

- Key continuous training subjects include methods of interpretation of law, burden and formalised standards of proof in various types of
process, jurisprudence as source of law, reasoning of decisions, oratory skills, professional ethics and disciplinary matters, information
technologies, psychology, strategic planning, budget and financial management, M&E, PR/communication

- Continuous training courses of judges other legal professionals (prosecutors, lawyers etc.) approximated, some curricula and courses
harmonised

- Regular internships, traineeships and study visits at ECHR, ECJ and EU MS judiciary bodies

- Information management system (IS) of NSJ interoperable with those of the judiciary governance bodies and high educational institutions
(HEIs)

2. Separate CT curricula, including distance learning courses, developed, updated regularly and placed in electronic librariesNSJ, CJ / Decisions, reports, publications
3. European and international cooperation network fully operational, including cooperation agreements with EU judiciary bodiesNSJ, CJ / Decisions, MOUs, conferences, traineeships
Area of Intervention 2.3
Greater Uniformity of Practice
2.3.1 Development of research and analysis tools to facilitate uniformity of practice1. Research and analysis units at SC, HSCs and appellate courts fully operational, to replace ‘scientific councils’SC, HSCs, Appeal Courts / Decisions, contracts, job descriptions, placement plans, trainings- Constant flow of feedback between courts’ research and analysis units, NSJ and HEIs; jurisprudential and legislative developments taking
place as suggested in research papers, gap analysis and impact assessment reports- User-friendly keyword-based search tools on court websites allowing to look for jurisprudence and legislation, with linkages to SC and
other higher courts’ practice under that legislation

- Regular use of online forum of judges (set up under SJA information technology network) and other online resources by judiciary, allowing
to exchange views on case-law, interpretation of law, information and materials on trainings, conferences, seminars

- Binding nature of CC, SC, HAC and HSCs case-law confirmed in decisions of lower courts i

- Decisions of all courts must comply with ECHR practice appropriate categories of cases.

2. Agreements for cooperative relationships between courts and NALS) and legal HEIs foreseeing initiatives facilitating exchange of research into jurisprudenceSC, HSCs, Appeal Courts, NSJ,NALS HEIs / MOUs, decisions, reports
3. Research and analysis papers produced regularly, identifying gaps between statute and practice and making recommendations for
improvements		SC, HSCs, Appeal Courts, NSJ, NALS, HEIs / Publications, reports
4. Reviewed regulatory framework on publicity of court decisions and persuasive/ binding nature of ECHR, Constitutional Court (CC), Supreme
Court (SC) and other Higher Specialised Courts’ jurisprudence		CC, SC, HAC, MOJ, Parliament, HSCs, / Decisions, statutes and rules amended
5. Courts intranet and websites, electronic courts case-law databases and search engines, fully operationalCJ, HCJ, MOJ / Decisions, hardware and software in place, trainings, manuals, review reports
6. Procedural regulatory framework updated regularly to adjust procedural law in civil/commercial, administrative and criminal matters
(including appeals system) to foster greater uniformity of practice [2]		SC, HSCs, Appeal Courts, MOJ, Parliament / Decisions, statutes and rules amended

Impact Indicators for Chapters 1-4

  1. User satisfaction surveys (conducted as part of judiciary performance management system, or by external observers) attest increased trust of society in judiciary generally, and its independence and competence in particular (baseline: 2015; suggested 2016 target - increase by 5%; 2018 target - increase by 15%; 2020 target - increase by 25%).
  2. Trial monitoring surveys conducted by external observers attest improvement of affairs in fairness of proceedings in same selected court, appellate region or jurisdiction (baseline: 2015).
  3. 10 % annual decrease in number of structural violations found by ECHR with regard to decisions taken by Ukrainian judiciary (baseline: relevant ECHR judgments pronounced in 2015; only pilot judgments or repetitive cases taken into account).
  4. 5 % annual decrease in number of cases at ECHR establishing divergences in practice of Ukrainian courts in applying national legislation, or establishing breaches of independence or impartiality of tribunal, or fairness of proceedings or defence rights, or ‘reasonable time’ requirement (baseline: relevant ECHR judgments pronounced in 2015).
  5. Improved implementation of general measures in view of any ECHR judgment regarding Ukraine (baseline: number of pending cases before the COE Committee of Ministers (COE CM) where general measures are indicated at end of 2015; suggested 2018 target - total decrease by 15%, decrease of enhanced supervision cases by 25%; 2020 target - total decrease by 25%, decrease of enhanced supervision cases by 35%).
  6. Progress noted by COE CM in implementation of general measures deriving from Volkov v. Ukraine judgment (baseline: 2015).
  7. 20 % annual decrease in findings by COE CM on failure to enforce individual measures in any ECHR judgment regarding Ukraine (baseline: 2015).
  8. Ukraine’s standing in various relevant international indices relating to performance of judiciary improves, including Governance Indicators and Rule of Law Index (World Bank Institute), World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Competitiveness Report, rankings by Freedom House, World Justice Project (Rule of Law Index), Transparency International (CPI etc.), Bertelsmann Stiftung Transformation Index (BTI), WB Doing Business Index (baseline: 2015).
  9. Acknowledgement of Ukraine’s progress in judiciary reform noted in EU reports and various policy dialogue documents, such as Association Agreement and Visa Liberalisation Action Plan implementation reports (baseline: 2015).