Mikheil Saakashvili, head of the Executive Committee of the National Reform Council, has released a video setting out the concept for reforming Ukraine's judicial system that has been developed. According to him, it is being put forward for public discussion.
"According to the latest sociological surveys, distrust of the judicial system stands at about 70%. These figures prove that judicial reform is urgently needed. And it must be fundamental, decisive and swift," Saakashvili wrote.
First, it is proposed to remove the "multiplicity" of the court oversight system: to abolish the High Council of Justice, the High Qualification Commission of Judges and the State Judicial Administration and to create a single judicial oversight body in their place.
This body will have the following functions: 1) selection and re-evaluation of judges, 2) consideration of disciplinary cases based on complaints against judges, 3) monitoring of judicial integrity, 4) ensuring the financial independence of the courts.
Simplify the judicial system: abolish the administrative, commercial and general courts and create district justice centers instead. In total, 200 of the 764 courts are to remain, "where access will be made easier and the procedure will be much faster and more transparent."
"In addition, there should be a High Administrative Court, to which citizens will turn regarding decisions of state bodies; a High Anti-Corruption Court; and a High Court on Intellectual Property," Saakashvili stated.
"Court in a smartphone": as Saakashvili explains, this is a continuation of Zelensky's "State in a smartphone" initiative, where "everything will be automated, online, transparent — and this is not science fiction."
The new system is expected to handle the automatic distribution of cases and to make it possible to file a lawsuit online, pay court fees and submit evidence online as well, and obtain copies of court decisions. Saakashvili did not explain how exactly this is supposed to work in practice.
Second, it is proposed to introduce an "alternative justice system" for resolving disputes: this means establishing arbitration tribunals, using mediation and applying foreign law in investment disputes.
"KyivCity is a pilot initiative of President Zelensky that will allow English law to be used as a pilot project in order to see how it works here and then extend it to the whole country," Saakashvili said, without specifying what he meant.
Saakashvili also said that the Supreme Court should become a "small supercourt" and that the names of its judges "will be known to the whole country, and they will be carefully selected," because they "will shape judicial practice."
Moreover, in Saakashvili's opinion, the Constitutional Court in its current form "is not needed at all," and its fate should be decided in a referendum. It is proposed to turn it into the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court.
How investors, who complain perhaps more than anyone about the dislocations of the judicial branch in Ukraine, reacted to this, and what businesses propose to change in Ukraine's judicial system — in their own words, in comments to the newspaper Den:
Oleksandr Mahun, member of the Ukrainian Business Council, founder of West Ukrainian Business Club
Ukraine has long lacked a fundamental concept for a revolutionary judicial reform. To this day, individual politicians, political parties and clans have a significant, at times tyrannical, influence over Ukraine's fragile judiciary. Three bills that will set the course of justice in Ukraine are currently registered in the Verkhovna Rada: No. 3711 (by President Volodymyr Zelensky), No. 3711-1 (by MP Yaroslav Yurchyshyn of the Holos party faction) and No. 3711-2 (by MPs Serhiy Demchenko, Viktoriya Kinzburska, Oleh Dunda and Taras Tarasenko of the Servant of the People party faction). The next decision is up to the people's elected representatives, who will vote for one bill or another. I am confident that this vote will have more serious consequences for the state than just another change to the law.
There is a view that even the slightest mistake in choosing the right path for the new judicial reform will have serious consequences not only inside the country but also for Ukraine's position on the foreign policy stage. Judicial reform is directly linked to economic development and the well-being of Ukrainians. Incidentally, distrust of the judicial system, of judges and of the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) and the High Council of Justice (HCJ) is one of the obstacles to attracting foreign investment into Ukraine quickly and effectively.
I am convinced that any reform requires a clear and carefully calibrated strategy, which is most often missing. The judicial system has already undergone numerous changes, but none of them has been successful. Turning to the content of the bills themselves, I can say that, in my opinion, the most correct path may be bill No. 3711-1. It incorporates recommendations from the public, our international commitments and the points of political forces' election promises. It also provides for integrity checks of current and future HCJ members, which will make it possible to destroy any schemes and corrupt ties at the root and to avoid possible "personal interests." Under this bill, the HQCJ will be formed by an independent selection commission that will include international experts, who will have a direct influence on the formation of the HCJ. I am convinced that the other two bills, if they are passed without substantial revisions and changes, may well bury the hope of transforming the judicial system for a long time. After all, they do not "cut off the hydra's head" but merely partly hide it from public view.
Yuriy Syvytsky, member of the Ukrainian Business Council, founder of Intecracy Group
We need to create an Integrity Council for the selection of judges and develop the criteria by which this Council selects judges. For example, an inability to provide evidence of the origin of one's wealth, or repeatedly issuing clearly contradictory court decisions. There must also be the strictest possible oversight of the selection of judges for the Supreme Court. But even that will not work without this Integrity Council, which has a direct say in removing judges from practice.