On Improving Disciplinary and Other Procedures for Judges

Draft laws No. 13137 and 13137-1 have been registered in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, proposing a radical overhaul of the rules governing disciplinary liability of judges.

Under the current framework, a key ground for dismissal is “conduct that disgraces the status of a judge or undermines the authority of justice.” The draft laws effectively abolish this basis. Instead, they retain only narrowly defined cases (for example, property violations exceeding UAH 1.5 million or drunk driving confirmed by a sobriety test), which can be easily circumvented: a judge may unlawfully acquire assets just below the threshold or refuse to undergo testing for intoxication to avoid disciplinary liability.

The draft legislation also restricts the filing of complaints against judges in cases deemed “abusive” and introduces disproportionate fines for submitting new complaints. Complaints concerning judges who have not yet been finally dismissed by the High Council of Justice (e.g., Yevhenii Ablov, Kostiantyn Pashchenko from the OASC) or those for whom no case has yet been opened (more than 30 OASC judges) are likely to be returned to complainants due to the absence of an effective response mechanism within the High Council of Justice regarding such violations. Additionally, the draft removes failure to submit, late submission, or knowingly false information in annual asset declarations from the list of disciplinary offenses, effectively allowing judges to avoid declaring assets or income without consequence. For false information in integrity or family-related declarations, the maximum sanction is a reprimand rather than dismissal, as is currently the case.

As a result, judges who have repeatedly been implicated in controversial or discrediting cases—including corruption scandals, collaborators, judges holding dual citizenship, or those involved in facilitating draft evasion—would be able to remain in office until such facts are established in a court ruling, a process that may take 5–10 years or may never be concluded.

According to experts, the draft law effectively dismantles the institution of disciplinary accountability for judges and deprives society of one of the few available tools for ensuring judicial integrity. It is argued that this directly contradicts Ukraine’s international obligations, obstructs anti-corruption reforms, and undermines trust in the judiciary.

On July 25, 2025, the High Council of Justice held consultations with experts from the Venice Commission and the Council of Europe regarding the proposed reforms to judicial disciplinary liability contained in draft laws 13137 and 13137-1. In addition, the Plenum of the Supreme Court approved an opinion on these draft laws, highlighting significant shortcomings and the need for revision. The Center for Policy and Legal Reform also issued its position:

“In the proposed version, it not only fails to address the problem of ensuring the unity of disciplinary practice, which is a strategic objective of Ukraine within the framework of European integration, but also grants excessively broad discretion to disciplinary bodies of the High Council of Justice in qualifying judicial misconduct and its consequences, creates unjustified corruption risks, contains provisions that are not fully aligned with anti-corruption legislation, and includes internal contradictions.”