A Make-or-Break Moment for the HACC Competition

The interviews in the second competition for the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) are entering the final stretch. On March 17, the last round of candidate interviews will take place. The selection is being held among 73 legal professionals who have expressed a desire to become anti-corruption judges.

Our organization has been monitoring this process since 2024. After the first selection attempt, when only two judges were appointed instead of 25, we systematically analyzed the flaws in the process and went on to advocate for systemic changes ahead of the new competition. Today, it is clear that this work was not in vain: the quality of the current selection is higher than in the previous round. However, we once again face difficult challenges.

1. The numbers trap: the Ukraine Facility Plan vs integrity

Ukraine has an international obligation to appoint at least 20 judges to meet its commitments and receive funding under the Ukraine Facility Plan. But are there really that many impeccable candidates in the pipeline?

The interviews have revealed quite a few grey areas in the backgrounds of applicants. We are convinced that HACC judges cannot enter office with unresolved doubts hanging over their reputation even before taking the oath. Any shadow at the selection stage will later turn into a crisis of trust in rulings on high-profile corruption cases.

The choice is simple, but painful: fill the vacancies in purely quantitative terms to obtain the tranche, or select only the very best candidates, risking part of the funding today for the sake of the quality of justice for decades to come, especially given that HACC judges are appointed for life. In the end, one judge who does not share HACC’s values will cost the state far more than any amount of financial assistance.

2. The “window of opportunity” for international experts is closing

If this competition fails to meet all of the court’s staffing needs, a third round will become inevitable. And that is where a procedural trap emerges: under current legislation, international experts will not take part in the next competition, because the mandate of the Public Council of International Experts (PCIE) expires in May 2026.

This means that international experts will no longer be able to participate in future selections, and their functions will have to be performed by the Public Integrity Council. Yet the Rule of Law Roadmap provides for filling all 25 vacant positions specifically with the participation of the PCIE by the end of Q1 2026. The problem is that there is not even a draft law at this point that would make this possible by extending the PCIE’s mandate.

Some in Ukraine may welcome that prospect. But this and other selection procedures have shown that we are not yet ready to rely solely on fully independent domestic experts in such commissions. 

The tandem of the High Qualification Commission of Judges and the Public Council of International Experts makes it possible to examine both a candidate’s assets and biography comprehensively, without turning the interview into a box-ticking formality. That is why extending the mandate of international experts is a matter of preserving HACC’s standards. Why give up international support when it is clearly proving effective right now? 

3. The formula for success: not perfect people, but reliable procedures

The requirement that HACC judges must be beyond reproach is not about searching for superheroes who do not exist. It is about ensuring resilience to undue influence in a country where the judiciary has suffered from corruption for decades.

The staffing crisis in the legal profession is undeniable. It is increasingly difficult to find strong professionals without skeletons in their closets, as recent interviews with prospective anti-corruption judges have once again demonstrated. And this is no longer visible only in the HACC competition, but in other selection processes as well. But the answer is not to lower the bar. It is to create competition rules and conditions in which equal opportunities and transparent criteria can genuinely attract the best candidates.

International commitments matter, but they should not turn into a headhunting exercise at the expense of quality. Over more than six years of work, the HACC has built a reputation as an institution that can be trusted with complex high-level corruption cases. That is why its judicial renewal must not be allowed to undermine that trust.