62.7% of candidates to the Supreme Court met the integrity criteria
The boards of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine completed interviews with all candidates to the Supreme Court. On June 6, 2017, the plenary (in full) sessions of the HQCJU will commence on candidates whose applications were temporarily put on hold in connection with the negative opinion of the Public Council of Integrity regarding their compliance with professional ethics and integrity criteria.
The interviews were held with 381 candidates (one candidate submitted a statement on withdrawal from the competition), among them 73.2 % are judges, 26.8 % are lawyers, academics in law, candidates with total experience in law. Please see our infographics for more detail.
For 62.7% (239) of the candidates the competitive selection procedures are over – the review of their candidatures was adjourned till the formation of the general rating. Among these candidates 155 judges, 33 lawyers, 32 academics in law and 19 candidates with total experience in law.
Regarding 7.1% (27) candidates, the HQCJU panels during the interviews passed resolutions on non-confirmation of their ability to administer justice in the Supreme Court. This decision was taken for 23 judges, three lawyers and one academic in law.
The HQCJU in full will pass resolutions on the integrity of 30.2 % (115) of candidates during plenary sessions scheduled on June 6. 101 judges, 4 academics in law, 4 lawyersand 6 candidates with total experience in law who received negative opinions from the Public Council of Integrity on their compliance with professional ethics and integrity will be subject to review. It should be noted that not less than 11 votes of the HQCJU members are needed to overcome negative opinions of the PCI (Art. 88 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”).
“Presenting an issue for voting at the plenary session of the Commission does not mean that the HQCJU boards disagreed or agreed with the PCI opinions, as some public organizations might package it. It means that the candidates provided explanations, in particular, documentary evidence. The Commission will have to investigate all these materials before making a decision”, said Mr. Sergii Koziakov, the Chairman of the Commission.
In total, The Public Council of Integrity presented non-compliance opinions on the professional ethics and integrity criteria for 36.7 % (140) candidates.
The PCI resolutions are distributed as follows:
- judges: 44 % of non-compliance opinions (123 candidates); information/dissenting opinion – 33 % (92 candidates); no evidence of non-compliance found – 23 % (64 candidates);
- lawyers: 15 % of non-compliance opinions (6 candidates); information/dissenting opinion – 45 % (18 candidates); no evidence of non-compliance found – 40 % (16 candidates);
- academics in law: 14 % of non-compliance opinions (5 candidates); information/dissenting opinion – 32 % (12 candidates); no evidence of non-compliance found – 54 % (20 candidates);
- total experience: 24 % of non-compliance opinions (6 candidates); information/dissenting opinion – 24 % (6 candidates); no evidence of non-compliance found – 52 % (13 candidates).
The HQCJU will form the rating of candidates after completion of plenary sessions. Pleasesee our infographics on the details of candidate scoring.
