Читати українською
Strategy Action plan
Action plan
Chapter 3
Action plan for
Chapter 3

Increasing Accountability of Judiciary

The development of and compliance with high standards of conduct and ethical principles - and transparency in informing the public - provides a vital foundation for the fair administration of justice, and secures members of the judiciary from improper influence, while also fostering public trust and confidence. Various steps are proposed to improve the existing ethical and disciplinary framework, by both making the rules clearer to judges and the general public, while also ensuring that the procedures in cases of a breach ensure the requisite degree of fairness and participation to everyone involved. In addition, steps will be taken for effective investigation of disciplinary breaches, while also helping deal with and prevent any mismanagement or lack of accountability by the judiciary. The mechanism will ensure greater clarity, foreseeability and constant monitoring of application of ethical and disciplinary rules, in particular the rules related to the prevention of the conflict of interest and corruption. Other important tools to increase accountability lay in the review of the question of judicial immunities (while providing safeguards from undue pressure or abuse), and reinforcement of mechanism of publication of income, asset and expenditure declarations, which will be piloted as part of the immediate priorities listed in Part I of the Strategy.

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 3.1
Increased Accountability through Improved Ethical and Disciplinary Framework
3.1.1 Development of ethical framework1. SJGB Ethics Committee fully operationalSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ) / Decision, reports- Ethics framework for judges and courts staff with clear and foreseeable substantive requirements, publicly accessible and consistent
practice in their application- Institutionalisation of principle of functional (personal, procedural) independence of judge dealing with particular case from other
judges

- Institutionalisation of duty of impartiality of judge

- Delineation in practice of ethical requirements (positive principles of conduct) from disciplinary rules (negative prohibitions)

- Clarification in practice of systemic or serious breaches of ethical requirements, giving rise to disciplinary responsibility

2. Dedicated staff assigned at SJGB/CJ to deal with ethics issuesSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ) / Decisions, contracts, job descriptions, placement plans, trainings
3. Code of Judicial Ethics annotated and updated regularlySJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), SC, HSCs / Decisions
4. Rules of Conduct of Courts Staff annotated and updated regularlySJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), SJA, SC, HSCs / Decisions
5. Practice guides and training module on ethical framework of judges and courts staff developed, disseminated and updated regularlyNSJ, CJ, SJA / Decisions, trainings, publications
3.1.2 Development of disciplinary framework1. Dedicated staff assigned to deal with disciplinary issuesSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), HQC, SJA / Decisions, contracts, job descriptions, placement plans, trainings- One judicial governance body to examine all disciplinary cases; optimised number of judicial governance bodies in charge of career,
performance management and disciplinary liability matters- Clear, foreseeable and applicable grounds for disciplinary liability, including giving rise to dismissal

- Revised limitation period for bringing judge to disciplinary liability

- Accessible, reasoned, and consistent practice in judiciary ethical and disciplinary matters

- Scope and extent of mens rea (intention, negligence etc.) and considerations of prejudice caused defined for disciplinary liability
purposes (with clarification of need for cumulative or separate consideration)

- Dismissal as disciplinary sanction in law and practice; enlarged list of other disciplinary sanctions

- Application of proportionality principle in ruling whether and what disciplinary sanction is to be imposed

- One set of procedures for all disciplinary cases

- Full guarantees of fairness of proceedings in disciplinary cases before judiciary governance bodies;

- Mechanism in place to prevent judge under disciplinary investigation from bringing ordinary court proceedings

- Right to appeal against decision of disciplinary body

2. Reviewed regulatory framework on substantive disciplinary rules, procedures and competent bodies to examine disciplinary casesSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), MOJ, Parliament, HSCs / Decisions, statutes and rules amended
3. Practice guide and training module on disciplinary framework developed, disseminated and updated regularlyNSJ, SJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), HQC / Decisions, trainings, publications
4. Online system for filing complaints against judges fully operationalSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ) / Decisions, software in place, trainings, manuals, review reports
5. Statistics on disciplinary cases published and analysed in Judiciary Annual ReportsSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ) / Reports
3.1.3 Development of internal and external oversight mechanisms to combat and prevent corruption1. Regulatory framework in place on role and powers of judicial inspectorsSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), MOJ, Parliament / Decisions, statutes and rules amended- Optimised institutional framework on internal anti-corruption oversight, its competences balanced

- Liability established for inspectors for non-performance of duties, avoidance of appropriate response to potential or actual offenses,

- Effective mechanism for investigating cases, hearing individual complaints for disciplinary cases and application of anti-corruption
measures within judiciary;

- practical and effective investigation mechanisms of corruption and other serious disciplinary offences committed by judges

- Mixture of discussion-based and incentive/repression-based approaches in disciplinary oversight

- Annual asset, income and expenditure declarations of all judges accessible online

- Regular monitoring/verification of asset, income and expenditure declarations of prosecutors by judicial inspectors and National Agency
for Prevention of Corruption; judges holding management positions subject to compulsory full examination; declarations of other judges
examined randomly, or in response to relevant communications

- Generic standardised data on results of integrity checks, including information on bringing criminal actions against judges,

- Dedicated continuous training curricula for and regular study visits of judicial inspectors to EU MS, to share best practices

- Functional immunity of judges regulated in clear and foreseeable manner

- Exhaustive list of clear-cut grounds enabling establishment of judge’s breach of oath

- Streamlined system of authorisation of the bodies responsible for forming the judicial corps for application of restrictive measures
related to limitation of freedom of a judge, excluding the cases of detention in flagante delicto while committing a grave or special grave
crime against life and health of a person

- Fully implemented institute of “judicial dossier”, which allows to accumulate information about professional activity of each judge.

2. System of “judge’s dossier” in place, accumulating information about judge’s professional activitiesSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), MOJ, Parliament, NGOs / Decisions, statutes and rules amended
3. Reviewed regulatory framework on procedure and mechanism of conduct by inspectors of annual integrity checksSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), MOJ, Parliament, HQC, HSCs / Decisions, statutes and rules amended
4. Reviewed regulatory framework on annual asset, income and expenditure declarations of all judges, and their monitoring/verificationSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), MOJ, Parliament, HQC, HSCs / Decisions, statutes and rules amended, practice guides
5. Reviewed regulatory framework on judicial immunitiesSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), MOJ, Parliament, HQC, HSCs / Decisions, statutes and rules amended
6. Institutionalisation of random case assignment, while taking into account needs of specialisation if judgesSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), MOJ, Parliament / Decisions, statutes and rules amended
7. Civilian Oversight Board of SJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), fully operationalSJGB (HCJ, HQC, CJ), MOJ, Parliament, CSOs / 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).