How MPs Want to Safeguard the Independence of Judicial Selection: Analysis of Draft Law No.13382

On June 18, 2025, Anastasiia Radina, together with other MPs, registered Draft Law No. 13382 on amendments to the Law of Ukraine on the Judiciary and the Status of Judges aimed at improving the procedure for selecting members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ). In particular, the draft law proposes to extend the participation of international experts in the selection process for HQCJ members.

The reason for registering this draft law was the expiration, on June 1, 2025, of the mandate of the first composition of the Competition Commission responsible for the HQCJ competition. Under the law, the first composition consisted of six members: three delegates from among current or retired judges nominated by the Council of Judges of Ukraine, and three nominated by international and foreign organizations. All future compositions of the Commission are to be formed exclusively by national bodies.

Following the end of the first Competition Commission’s mandate, nearly 90 civil society organizations called for preserving and extending the participation of international experts in competition commissions, particularly for the HQCJ competition.

Transparency International Ukraine analyzed the key proposals of draft law No. 13382 and the possible impact of its adoption.

Brief conclusion

Extending the participation of international experts in the HQCJ selection process, as envisaged by the draft law, would have a positive effect on the quality and independence of the selection procedure.

Our recommendation:

• Adopt Draft Law No. 13382 in its current version as quickly as possible, both as the basis and in full, without introducing inappropriate amendments that could compromise the integrity of the HQCJ competition.

What is it like now?

The Competition Commission is an auxiliary body of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) established to conduct the competition and form a shortlist of candidates for the position of an HQCJ member. In particular, the Commission is tasked with verifying whether candidates meet the criteria of integrity and professional competence. After the Commission completes its work, the HCJ conducts interviews with the candidates and issues a reasoned decision on their appointment or rejection.

The Law of Ukraine on the Judiciary and the Status of Judges states that only the first composition of the Competition Commission was to include international experts. The term of this composition expired two years after the appointment of the first full HQCJ, i.e., on June 1, 2025.

The next composition of the Competition Commission will be formed by the Council of Judges of Ukraine (3 members), the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine (1 member), the Bar Council of Ukraine (1 member), and the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine (1 member). Civil society organizations have previously pointed out that these bodies do not enjoy a high level of public trust.

It is expected that this new Competition Commission, without international representation, will conduct the next large-scale competition for the HQCJ. This will likely take place in June 2027, when the four-year term of fifteen out of sixteen current HQCJ members is scheduled to end.

This upcoming competition is highly significant, as the HQCJ, particularly its new composition, will be responsible for completing key procedures in the judicial career system that were launched or continued by the current HQCJ:

1) Qualification assessment of over 1,300 sitting judges,

2) Selection of 1,800 judges for local courts, and

3) A potential competition for the Supreme Court.

There is also a possibility that the next HQCJ composition may conduct a competition for the High Anti-Corruption Court without the involvement of the Public Council of International Experts. Under current legislation, the PCIE’s mandate will expire in May 2026.

What Draft Law No. 13382 proposes

According to the explanatory note, the aim of the draft law is to extend the mandate of the Competition Commission with international experts in its composition. The authors argue that this is necessary to ensure a high-quality selection process for the next HQCJ, given the importance of its tasks.

The draft proposes that the term of the Competition Commission with international experts be set at five years from the date of appointment of the first full HQCJ. In other words, this composition would remain in place until June 2028.

The draft also proposes an alternative condition for ending the Commission’s mandate. If, at the time the term is due to expire, a competition for HQCJ membership is underway, the Commission’s powers would continue until the HCJ issues a decision appointing a selected candidate.

This proposal clearly reflects a lesson learned from the situation surrounding the most recent HQCJ competition, when the Commission recommended two candidates on May 30, just one day before its mandate expired.

Given that the term of the first Competition Commission has now ended, the adoption of the draft law would initiate the formation of a new composition under the same rules that governed the previous selection process.

The draft law also stipulates that the term of office of a Competition Commission member may not exceed four years. However, former members would still be eligible to serve again.

Importantly, the draft confirms that the Competition Commission is considered quorate if it includes at least four members, two of whom must be recommended by international or foreign organizations. It also proposes preserving the decisive vote of international experts.

Conclusion

The adoption of the draft law would positively impact on the quality and independence of the HQCJ selection process. This is especially important given the near-total renewal of the HQCJ anticipated in 2027. A merit-based and transparent selection of new members is crucial in light of the responsibilities the HQCJ will bear.

It is also a positive development that the draft reflects lessons from the most recent competition, where candidate recommendations were made just before the HQCJ’s term expired. Extending the mandate in cases where competition is underway would help avoid rushed decisions or the need to restart the process.

Transparency International Ukraine emphasizes that ensuring a high-quality and independent HQCJ requires not just one, but several rounds of selection with the involvement of international experts. Phasing out their participation in the selection of HQCJ members could undermine the progress already achieved and risk the return of political influence over judicial governance.