Selection of Judges for the High Anti-Corruption Court: What the Interviews Look Like

For the past two weeks, interviews have been underway with candidates seeking to fill 23 vacant judge positions at the HACC. Candidates are being asked to explain partially declared assets, account for their income, and describe their motivation for becoming judges of the Anti-Corruption Court.

The HACC is arguably the court most discussed in Ukraine’s information space lately. The public has closely followed high-profile cases of former MPs Oleksandr Onyshchenko and Iryna Kormyshkina, as well as former State Fiscal Service Head Roman Nasirov. More recently, the court has also heard motions on pre-trial interim measures for former Justice Minister Herman Halushchenko, Batkivshchyna parliamentary faction leader Yuliia Tymoshenko, and former Deputy Prime Minister Oleksii Chernyshov. 

But who is tasked with judging top-level corruption cases—and more besides? And how are these people selected?

The Anti-Corruption Court competition

Back in June of last year, the High Qualifications Commission of Judges (HQCJ) announced the third competition for judicial positions at the HACC. This time, 23 seats are vacant: 13 at HACC (trial court) and 10 in the HACC Appeals Chamber.

A key change is that the selection is now “unified”: candidates were allowed to apply for both the trial and appellate levels at the same time. Seats in the Appeals Chamber will go to those candidates who applied for both and score the highest during the assessment process.

It is worth mentioning why there are so many vacancies across both levels of HACC. The previous competition largely failed. After a lengthy selection process, only two candidates secured the coveted positions, even though there was a need to fill 25 seats. Moreover, expanding HACC’s staffing is one of the requirements for receiving financial assistance under the Ukraine Facility Plan.

At the end of last year, we learned the results of the candidates’ practical exam. At that stage of the previous competition, 84% of participants were eliminated. This time, however, 73 out of 85 candidates passed on the second attempt. That means there are now 3.2 candidates per vacant HACC seat—far better than last time, when there were only 0.3 candidates per seat before interviews began.

And now, for the past two weeks, the most extensive stage of the competition has been underway: interviews with candidates conducted with the participation of the Public Council of International Experts (PCIE) and the HQCJ. So far, 33 interviews have already taken place. Transparency International Ukraine’s experts have been closely monitoring these conversations and have found several key points.

I should emphasize that interviews focus primarily on problematic aspects of candidates’ backgrounds, so the overall picture may seem more negative than it actually is. In addition, the commission does not provide feedback on candidates’ answers, so we can only guess whether the experts found particular explanations satisfactory.

What stands out in the interviews?

A new feature of this year’s assessment is that commission members analyzed candidates’ search history in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions (USRCD) under full-access mode. The increased attention to this issue is well-founded: not long ago, the NABU opened criminal proceedings over the systematic use of full access by attorneys to deliberately search for information about criminal proceedings and investigative actions. 

During the interviews, PCIE and HQCJ members repeatedly asked some judges and former judicial assistants about searches concerning themselves and people in their close circle. Full access allows them to see personalized decisions, and that raises concerns that closed information could be used for private purposes. This is the first competition in which analysis of search history in the USRCD is a full-fledged element of candidate assessment. For that, the HQCJ and PCIE deserve specific recognition—not only for obtaining the relevant data, but also for integrating its analysis into the evaluation process.

Over the first two weeks of interviews, the question was posed to six candidates: Nazar Hryn, Vita Matolych, Dmytro Movchan, Andrii Dudikov, Viktor Antypenko, and Oksana Yevlakh. In particular, Dudikov searched 240 times for information unrelated to his own cases, including 75 searches concerning his sister’s ex-husband. Movchan’s search history has more than 100 requests containing the full name of a person close to him. Candidates’ explanations varied—from professional curiosity to a desire to avoid potential conflicts of interest. 

A large share of questions from PCIE and HQCJ members concerned significant underreporting of income and property values in candidates’ asset declarations. For example, attorney Iryna Kuzina reported receiving about UAH 50,000 during her time at Ilyashev & Partners for part of 2015 and for 2016–2017, and she refused to provide information about her income, citing a non-disclosure agreement. 

Another “record in frugality” came from the family of Associate Professor Oleksandr Ostrohliad. In 2016, his five-person household reportedly spent only UAH 25,600 (about $83 per month), and in 2017—UAH 36,000. The candidate explained that his in-laws paid utilities, while his parents provided food and preserved goods. When asked about the substantial undervaluation of a house Ostrohliad purchased from the son of his academic adviser, he described the property’s neglect: “The tiles were covered with a layer of pine needles, and chanterelle mushrooms were growing on them.” Despite the modest lifestyle described, the family purchased three new cars from dealerships, and the in-laws became owners of two apartments in a residential complex in central Kyiv. 

The integrity of Oleksandr Dudchenko, an associate professor at the Criminal Procedure Department of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, raised questions due to an unusual income of UAH 1 million from a single retail outlet with a margin of up to 120%, which he closed immediately after receiving the profit. He explained his assets, including a car, housing, and $12,000 in student savings, by citing orphan status, inheritance, help from relatives, and extreme thrift.

As for Vita Matolych, a judge of the Nadvirna District Court in Ivano-Frankivsk region, commission members suspected she was using her mother’s undeclared car—the same vehicle in which she was involved in a traffic accident. Her explanation that she spends up to seven hours a day commuting to work by public transportation did not persuade the PCIE and HQCJ experts.

Another candidate, Yevhen Kapitonov, a judge of the Vilniansk District Court in Zaporizhzhia region, failed to list housing in Vilniansk in his declarations, and—based on the information he provided—appeared to have purchased a Mercedes-Benz from himself. Ultimately, Kapitonov acknowledged these facts and agreed with the Ethics Council of the High Council of Justice’s decision from December 2025 finding that he did not meet the criteria of professional ethics and integrity. 

Gifts are another revealing element of candidates’ declarations. For example, in the summer of 2022, a person not close to the family gifted a house in Romny to Oksana Yevlakh, a judge of the Romny City-District Court in Sumy region. That naturally drew the commission’s attention. The candidate explained that her former husband bought the property for her as part of their divorce settlement, and that he had already arranged with the owner to use a deed of gift, despite it being a purchase in substance. In another case, Yevhen Didenko, a judge of the Pryazovske District Court in Zaporizhzhia region, received a house as a gift from his mother valued at UAH 20,000. His mother had purchased it for UAH 193,000, but the candidate could not recall why there was such a difference.

Some candidates also showed noticeable gaps in their understanding of legal concepts. Ivan Posokhov, a judge of the Siverskodonetsk City Court in Luhansk region, could not explain the meaning of habeas corpus or the substance of the Anti-Corruption Strategy. Nataliia Doroshenko, a judge of the Rivne District Administrative Court, did not fully understand the concept of a “whistleblower” and how a whistleblower’s reward is determined. Nazar Hryn, a judge of the Saksahanskyi District Court of Kryvyi Rih, could not clearly list corruption-related offenses and gave vague answers about how to distinguish administrative corruption offenses. 

Special attention was also paid to some candidates’ prior public actions and decisions. For example, sitting HACC judge Olena Tanasevych, explaining her participation in the so-called “Kivalov party,” attended by people involved in widely known criminal proceedings, emphasized that the event was merely formal. Attorney Dmytro Ostapenko, explaining his vote for Olena Duma as head of the ARMA (a vote he later withdrew after public backlash) said the experience taught him a lesson about the importance of thoroughly verifying information. 

Viktor Maslov, a sitting HACC judge, faced many questions about an alleged breach of deliberation secrecy in the Onyshchenko case, after which the HACC Appeals Chamber sent it back for a new trial. The panel had remained in deliberations for several months, during which judges attended training events and the congress of judges. Maslov emphasized that physically remaining in the courthouse for that long is impossible, and argued that there was no violation because the judges did not communicate with outsiders and attended only mandatory events.

Attorney Oleksandr Shtifonov had to address a profile on the Pravoved.ru service, where, in September 2014, someone using his name appears to have provided consultations on Russian law. Shtifonov said he was “not aware of such a registration.” However, taken together with trips to occupied Crimea, this raises concern. 

There were also candidates who stood out for sheer persistence. For example, Oleh Kimstachov, an assistant to a judge of the HACC Appeals Chamber, is participating in the HACC competition for the third time. His attempt last year ended negatively precisely at the stage involving PCIE assessment. At the time, the candidate apparently failed to dispel well-founded doubts related to the circumstances of his dismissal from a judicial position, his handling of a case involving a fellow judge of the same court, and the origin of funds connected to a cryptocurrency gift he received from his mother. This time, the main question from the experts was straightforward: what, exactly, has changed in the candidate’s explanations and position? Yet we did not hear anything new.

So, what motivates candidates to go through such a long and difficult competition? That, too, was one of the commission’s questions.

Marta-Mariia Yatsynina, a senior lecturer at Ukrainian Catholic University, described her desire as a logical career step, driven by an interest in practical work and a deep academic focus on criminal law and special subjects (public officials). Viktor Antypenko, a judge of the Rokytne District Court in Kyiv region, justified his decision in part by a desire for a “more prestigious profession,” adding that while working at HACC is much harder, “it is offset by a strong benefits package.” Attorney Oleksandr Shtifonov said his motivation was a desire to be useful to society because as an attorney, he is constrained by the interests of his client.

It is also telling that Mykola Rubashchenko, an associate professor of criminal law at Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, is simultaneously participating in a competition for an appellate court in Kharkiv. He candidly said that if he succeeds in both competitions, he would prefer the Kharkiv court, because it is his alma mater and appellate work attracts him with its broader range of cases compared with HACC’s narrow specialization.

***

Let me reiterate: these types of questions are typical for any competition in which candidates undergo integrity screening. Assets, prior decisions, contacts with the aggressor state—candidates are always asked about all of this, and that is a good thing. What matters is how candidates answer and how they refute the concerns raised.

More than two weeks of interviews still lie ahead—they will continue until March 17. We can see that members of the competition commission have taken a thorough approach to reviewing and analyzing candidates’ dossiers, and there is no shortage of questions for each candidate. At TI Ukraine, we will continue to monitor the interviews and highlight the key moments. We hope that this time, all 23 vacancies at the High Anti-Corruption Court will finally be filled and that the selected candidates will distinguish themselves by their commitment to the office.