Judicial reforms in Ukraine: polishing procedures and their systemic role

• Oksana Kaplina YaroslavMudryi National Law University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3654-673X
• Maxim Zhushman YaroslavMudryi National Law University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1235-6189
• Iryna Cherevatenko YaroslavMudryi National Law University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2937-1529

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3970.45

Palabras clave: poder judicial, lustración de jueces, independencia judicial, reformas del poder judicial, lucha ciudadana contra la corrupción

Resumen

Mediante una metodología documental próxima al método dialéctico, el objetivo del artículo es analizar las reformas judiciales en Ucrania. La creencia ciudadana sobre la paz, la justicia y las instituciones sólidas es un desafío no solo para Europa del Este, donde la confianza en los organismos estatales siempre fue baja. Mientras tanto, las reformas en curso del poder judicial tienen como objetivo lograr un resultado significativo mediante el uso de métodos específicos como: la depuración de los jueces. Después de la llamada “revolución de la dignidad” se iniciaron discusiones contundentes sobre el proceso de depuración en Ucrania. Por primera vez, esta cuestión se planteó a principios de los años 90 del siglo pasado. Desafortunadamente, los proyectos legislativos relevantes ni siquiera llegaron al congreso de Ucrania. Se concluye que Ucrania vive actualmente su tercer intento de iniciar un proceso de depuración judicial. A diferencia de los dos primeros, el tercero es aparentemente más productivo. Esto se debe al hecho de que se aprobó una ley especial y se inició el procedimiento de “purificación del gobierno”. finalmente se discuten preguntas como ¿qué es la lustración y en qué tipos se manifiesta? ¿cómo se relaciona este fenómeno con los procesos de transformación sistémica?

Citas

ABRAMOVYCH, Ruslan. 2015. Pryntsyp ne zvorotnosti diyi zakonu v chasi: evolyutsiya, stan ta perspektyvy vdoskonalennya yoho zastosuvannya v Ukrayini (The Principle of Irreversibility of Law in Time: Evolution, State and Prospects for Improving its). PhD Thesis, National University of Kyiv-MohylaAcademy. Kyiv, Ukraine (in Ukraine).

AP NEWS. 2019. EU court refers doubts on Polish judiciary to national court. 19 November 2019. Available online. In: https://apnews. com/908884a974ab47fca2a3c2ce7da5ebff. Date of consultation: 10/10/2020.

BBCNEWS.2018.EUcourtordersPolandtohaltcourtretirementslaw.Available online. In https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45917830. Date of consultation:10/06/2019.

BEZKLUBYI, Igor; KOCHKODAN, Igor. 2009. Poniattia, sutnist ta pravova pryrodaliustratsii’ [‘The Concept, Nature and Legal Nature of Lustration’]. Biuleten Ministerstva yustytsii Ukrainy. Ukraine. (in Ukraine).

BORKOWSKI, Grzegorz; SOVGYRIA, Olga. 2019. ‘Current Judicial Reform in Ukraine and in Poland: Constitutional and European Legal Aspect in the Context of Independent Judiciary’. Vol. 2, No. 3. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, pp. 5-35. Kiev, Ukraine.

CHOI, Susanne; DAVID, Roman. 2012. “Lustration Systems and Trust: Evidence from Survey Experiments in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland” In: American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 4, No. 117, pp. 1172-1201.

EUROPEAN CHARTER ON THE STATUTE FOR JUDGES, ADOPTED AT MULTILATERAL MEETING OF JUDGES IN STRASBOURG. 1998. (8 - 10 July 1998) para. 5.1 Available online. In: https://rm.coe. int/16807473ef. Date of consultation: 17/06/2020.

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW. 2014. On The Law On Government Cleansing (Lustration Law) Of Ukraine. Venice Commission. Available online. In: https://www.venice.coe.int/ webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL(2014)052-e. Date of consultation: 15/06/2019.

FEDERCO, G Di. 2012. ‘Judicial Acoountability and Conduct: An Overview’ in A Seibert-Fohr, L D Muller, D Zimmermann, E K Schmidt, S Klatte (eds), Judicial Independence in Transition. Springer. Heidelberg, Germany.

IZAROVA, Iryna. 2018. ‘Independent judiciary: experience of current reforms in Ukraine as regards appointment of judges’ in Judicial Management Versus Independence of Judiciary ed. by Katarzyna Gajda-Rosczynialska and Dobroslawa Szumilo-Kulczycka. Walters Kluwer. Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands.

IZAROVA, Iryna.2019. Reform of Civil Justice in Ukraine: A Differentiation of Action Proceedings and Review of Court Decisions. Teise (Law), Vol. 111. Available online. In: http://www.journals.vu.lt/teise/issue/view/1134. Date of consultation: 25/06/2019.

KNYSH, Vitaliy. 2014. Methodological Bases of Understanding the Essence and Characteristics of the Constitutional Legal Responsibility of Subjects of Constitutional Legal Relations. # 10. Naukovo-informatsiinyi visnyk. Kiev, Ukraine.

KONDRATOVA, Iryna; KOROTENKO, Tetiana. 2020. “Towards Modern Challenges in Financing the Judiciary: Between Independence and Autonomy” In: Access to Justice in Eastern Europe. Vol. 2/3/, No. 7, pp. 134-147.

KOSTIUCHENKO, Sergiy. 2019. Lustration is not a War with the Past, it is a Struggle for the Future. Available online. In: http://www.tyahnybok. info/dopysy/dopysy/005425. Date of consultation: 25/06/2019 (in Ukraine).

LAW OF UKRAINE. 1997. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on Official Interpretation of articles 58, 78, 79, 81 of the Constitution of Ukraine and articles 243-21, 243-22, 243-25 of the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine (in the Case of Incompatibility of the Parliamentary Mandate) No 1-зп, delivered on 13 May 1997 (1997)20 Official Visnyk of Ukraine, Article 117. (in Ukraine).

LAW OF UKRAINE. 2014. On Restoring Trust into Judicial Power in Ukraine 1188-VІІ’. Vidomosti of the Verkhovna Rada23/870. Available online. In: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1188-18. Date of consultation: 25/10/2020 (in Ukraine).

LAW OF UKRAINE. 2014. Zakon Ukrayiny ‘Pro ochyshchennya vlady’. ‘On Purification of Government’ № 1682-VII. Vidomosti of the Verkhovna Rada 44/2041. Available online. In: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1682-18/print1533984852614110. Date of consultation: 15/06/2019. (in Ukraine).

LUSTRATION AND VETTING. U.S. 2016. Department of State, 16 May 2016. Available online. In: https://www.state.gov/j/gcj/transitional/257569. htm. Date of consultation:15/05/2019.

PIASECKA, Agnieszka. 2015. Report: Purification of government or vetting Ukrainian style. The first year’s experience. Official web-site of the Open Dialog Foundation. Available online. In: https://en.odfoundation.eu/a/7029,report-purification-of-government-or-vetting-ukrainian-style- the-first-year-s-experience. Date of consultation: 15/10/2020.

RASMUSSEN V POLAND. 2009. (App No 38886/05) ECHR 28 April 2009 Available online. In: hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/ pdf/?library001-92429.pdf. Date of consultation: 17/10/2020.

THE REFORM IS NOT EUROPEAN: THE EU IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE FACT THAT THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES ARE SENT TO BOW THE PRESIDENT. 2018. Available online. In: http://zib.com.ua/ ua/133629ek_ne_zadovolena_tim_scho_suddiv_vs_vidpravlyayut_ na_uklin_d.html. Date of consultation: 30/10/2020.

ZAHAROV, Eugeniy. 2014. Four reasons for applying the veto to the law on the purge of power. (Urkaiins’ka Pravda, 6 October 2014). Available online. In: http://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2014/ 10/6/7039842/?attempt=1. Date of consultation: 5/10/2020 (in Ukraine).

ZAKON UKRAYINY ‘PRO VYSHCHU RADU PRAVOSUDDYA’ No 1798-VIII. 2017. The Law of Ukraine ‘On High Council of Justice. Official Visnyk of Ukraine.2017. 4. Article 107. (in Ukraine)