Читати українською
Strategy Action plan
Action plan
Chapter 5
Action plan for
Chapter 5

Increasing Transparency and Publicity of Justice

The objective is to secure access of individuals to the judicial system and information, in a transparent atmosphere, which promotes participation and oversight, and while minimising corruption and malfeasance. The promotion of transparency starts with a sound and implementable system regarding Freedom of Information, which also addresses the system for protecting State secrets. Only through a legally founded right to access information, which is respected and followed through sound procedures, can citizens determine how well the justice system is respecting their rights. Transparency and publicity in decision-making are also crucial. This includes a) open access to court proceedings and rulings, b) open governance of juridical institutions, c) a sound regime for defamation so that it is not abused to suppress rights, and . Transparency and open communication between the courts and the media is also required, so that information channels remain open, enabling public access to a wide range of sources and perspectives for information.

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 5.1
Increased Transparency through Streamlined Regulation of State Secrets and Freedom of Information (FOI)
5.1.1 Implementation of sound regulatory framework for freedom of information (FOI)1. Regulatory framework on FOI in placeMOJ, Parliament, Security Service of Ukraine (SSU), SC, HSCs / Decisions, statutes and rules introduced- Implementation of EU FOI requirements, with due account taken of special role of justice sector and need for publicity and transparency
for good administration of justice, as well as requisite degree of secrecy for greater efficiency in detection and prevention of crime- Clear, foreseeable and applicable definition of duties and powers of FOI Agency,

- Mixture of discussion-based and repression-based approaches in investigations within public sector by FOI Agency

- Non-formalistic approach and regularity in FOI reporting by justice sector institutions

- Disciplinary liability for failure to provide public information in all rules regulating justice sector institutions

- Bar engaged in development of framework for FOI and regularly soliciting information under FOI procedures

-Media engagement in soliciting information under FOI, including framework for investigative reporting and protection of journalistic
sources

Clear and foreseeable practice of courts on protection of secrecy of journalistic sources

- Increased public awareness of FOI regulatory framework and oversight mechanism

- Building public awareness of the importance of the freedom of information;

- support to the professionals working in this field

2. FOI body fully operationalMOJ, SSU, FOI body / Decisions, job descriptions, placement plans, trainings
3. Practice guides and training modules on FOI developed, disseminated and updated regularlyFOI body, MOJ, NSJ, BTC, SSU/ Decisions,trainings
4. Uniform FOI reporting system in place in all justice institutionsFOI body , CJ, PPO, MOJ, SC, HSCs, NBC, SSU / Decisions, reports
5. Awareness campaigns on FOIFOI Agency, MOJ, GOU / Decisions, campaigns conducted
6. Implementation of a case-based media strategy for the promotion of freedom of informationBAR, NBC, MOJ / Decisions, campaigns conducted
7. Collection and publication of the best practices for protection of the right to obtain information, using materials for the training ofournalists and advocatesBAR, NBC, MOJ, Media / Decisions, publications
8. Reviewed regulatory framework on FOIBAR, BNC, MOJ, Parliament, SSU, SC, HSCs / Decisions, statutes and rules amended
5.1.2 Balancing statutory framework on confidentiality with right to fair trial and interest of transparent justice1. Reviewed regulatory framework on State, official, and commercial secrets.CJ, MOJ, MOI, SSU, Parliament / Decisions, statutes and rules amended- Functional (qualified) rather than absolute approach to what information is protected by secrecy/confidentiality or public

- Requisite degree of secrecy for greater efficiency in national security, crime detection and prevention

- Harmonized legislation covering State, official, and commercial secrets

- Greater access to secret information by legal professionals and civil society organizations

- Clear and foreseeable practice of national courts in cases regarding journalists’ interference in administration of justice

2. Practice guides and training modules on State and official secrets developed, disseminated and updated regularlyMOJ, MOI, SSU, NSJ, BTC / Decisions, trainings
Area of Intervention 5.2
Increased Transparency through Publicity in Justice Sector Decision-Making
5.2.1 Extension of individual rights regarding transparency and publicity of courts proceedings. Ensuring greater openness of information about courts, stages of proceedings and their decisions1. Reviewed regulatory framework on publicity of court hearings and decisionsCJ, MOJ, Parliament, SC, HSCs, HAC / Decisions, statutes and rules introduced- No hearing on the merits of cases take place in judge’s office

- Unequivocal right of media to attend any court hearing which is public

- Clear, foreseeable and applicable definition of scope and extent of restrictions on photographing or recording of court hearings by
parties, media or public

- Possibility to citizens and media presence due advance notice of the schedule for court sessions.

- User-friendly keyword-based search tools for all court decisions, with linkages to legislation and rules

- Creation of fruitful working relations between media and judiciary

2. Hearing schedule information system in all courts fully operationalCJ, SC, HSCs, HAC / Decisions, hardware and software in place, review reports, trainings
3. Electronic courts case-law database and search engine fully operationalCJ, SC, HSCs, HAC, MOJ / Decisions, hardware and software in place, review reports, trainings
4. Establishment of courtroom journalism networkNBC, MOJ, SJA / Decisions, MOUs, reports, campaigns conducted
5.2.2 Development of transparent justice-sector governance1. Dedicated PR/communication capacities of all justice sector governance bodies and sector institutionsCJ, PG/PPO, SC, HSCs, NBC, MOI / Decisions, reports, trainings- Active role and timely statements by justice sector governance bodies in response to perceived threats to independence and fairness of justice by reason of media coverage or public statements of State officials

- Clear, foreseeable and applicable conditions on public access and participation at hearings by all justice sector governance bodies

2. Reviewed Rules of Procedure of justice sector governance bodiesCJ, PG/PPO, SC,HSCs, NBC / Decisions

Impact Indicators for Chapters 5-7

  1. User satisfaction surveys (conducted by sector stakeholders, or by external observers) attest increased access to justice in general, and performance of legal aid, Bar, bailiffs, notaries and ADR system in particular (baseline: 2015; suggested 2016 target - increase by 5%; 2018 target - increase by 15%; 2020 target - increase by 25%; targets to be split by institution/type of service).
  2. Trial monitoring surveys conducted by external observers attest improvement of affairs in access to justice in general, and quality of legal representation in particular (baseline: 2015).
  3. 10 % annual decrease in number of structural violations found by ECHR with regard to right to court, fairness of proceedings or defence rights (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 breach of right to court, fairness of proceedings or defence rights (baseline: relevant ECHR judgments pronounced in 2015).
  5. Improved implementation of general measures in view of any ECHR judgment regarding breach of right to court, fairness of proceedings or defence rights (baseline: number of pending cases before 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. 20 % annual decrease in findings by COE CM on failure to enforce individual measures in any ECHR judgment regarding Ukraine establishing breach regarding right to court, fairness of proceedings or defence rights (baseline: 2015).
  7. Annual progress in enforcement of final court judgments in civil and administrative (excluding misdemeanour) matters (baseline: all final court judgments on 1 January 2016; suggested 2016 target - 50% of total final court judgments in civil cases enforced within legally established timelines; 2018 target - 60%; 2020 target – 70%).
  8. State financing of legal aid system at least at the CEPEJ average level in proportion to GDP (baseline: CEPEJ report for calendar year).
  9. Legal aid provided in at least 10% of civil and 20% of administrative (excluding misdemeanour) cases (baseline: pending litigious civil and administrative cases at material time).
  10. 10 % annual increase of cases in ADR (baseline: same point in time one year ago for which annual statistics available; targets to be split per type of ADR/type of process).
  11. Ukraine’s standing in various relevant international indices relating to access to justice improves, including Governance Indicators and Rule of Law Index (World Bank Institute), 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).
  12. Acknowledgement of Ukraine’s progress in ensuring access to justice noted in EU reports and various policy dialogue documents, such as Association Agreement and Visa Liberalisation Action Plan implementation reports (baseline: 2015).