On February 17, the Public Council of International Experts and the High Qualification Commission of Judges announced that five HACC candidates did not meet the criteria of integrity and professionalism. Experts have determined that two participants may proceed in the competition.
These lucky ones are:
- Tetiana Lytvynko – Judge of the Shostka City District Court of Sumy Region;
- Olena Chernova – Judge of the Zolochiv District Court of Kharkiv Region, now seconded to the Irpin City Court of Kyiv Region.
Regrettably, the Commission and the Council did not provide any rationale for their decision when announcing the interview results. However, further details on how the two candidates addressed concerns about their integrity and professionalism will become clear once the joint decisions of the HQCJ and PCIE are published within 20 days.
We believe that the arguments presented in the joint decisions of the PCIE and HQCJ should be substantial enough to assure the public of these participants’ trustworthiness. After all, the credibility of the competition and the future HACC judges depends directly on the transparency of decision-making and the public disclosure of its reasoning.
“Of course, no one anticipated such an outcome for this competition, where only 2 out of 7 candidates were able to demonstrate their integrity and professionalism to the experts. However, we remain convinced that the authority and public trust in the HACC are its most valuable assets, built on the institution’s high-quality judicial work. The arguments behind such a decision were likely valid, which is why we would like to see them,” — explains Kateryna Ryzhenko, Deputy Executive Director of Transparency International Ukraine.
These interviews are not the final stage that candidates must overcome. Ahead of them, their integrity and professional ethics will be evaluated on a 300-point HQCJ scale, after which the selected candidates will undergo a final review by the High Council of Justice.
At Transparency International Ukraine, we will continue to closely monitor the progress of the competition and will certainly share our insights on the analyzed decisions of the PCIE and the HQCJ.
Of course, no one anticipated such an outcome for this competition, where only 2 out of 7 candidates were able to demonstrate their integrity and professionalism to the experts. However, we remain convinced that the authority and public trust in the HACC are its most valuable assets, built on the institution’s high-quality judicial work.
Kateryna Ryzhenko
