Constitutional Stage of the Judicial Reform in Ukraine
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NATIONAL SECURITY & DEFENCE CONTENT π 2-3 (139-140) JUDICIAL REFORM IN UKRAINE: CURRENT RESULTS, PROSPECTS AND RISKS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL STAGE 2013 (The Razumkov Centre’s Аnalytycal Report) ......................................................... 2 Founded and published by: 1. COURT WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF STATE GOVERNANCE: INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND STANDARDS .......................................................... 3 INTERNATIONAL NORMS ENSURING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AS WELL AS THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY AS AN IMPORTANT CONDITION FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION (Annex) .................................................... 9 UKRAINIAN CENTRE FOR ECONOMIC & POLITICAL STUDIES 2. THE 2010 JUDICIAL REFORM: GOALS AND PROGRESS ...........................................15 NAMED AFTER OLEXANDER RAZUMKOV SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT PRECEDED THE JUDICIAL REFORM OF 2010 (Annex)... 29 Director General Anatoliy Rachok 3. SECOND (CONSTITUTIONAL) STAGE OF THE JUDICIAL REFORM: Editor Valeriya Klymenko PROSPECTS AND RISKS ..................................................................................... 35 Layout and design Oleksandr Shaptala 4. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS ........................................................................ 56 Technical support Volodymyr Kekukh EXPERT ASSESSMENTS THE JUDICIAL REFORM AND STATE OF THE JUDICIARY IN UKRAINE ......................... 62 This journal is registered with the State Committee NATIONWIDE SURVEY of Ukraine for Information Policy, COURTS AND JUDICIAL REFORM IN UKRAINE: PUBLIC OPINION ............................... 71 registration certificate KB №4122 FOCUS GROUPS COURT IN UKRAINE: OPINIONS OF CITIZENS WHO DEALT Published in Ukrainian and English WITH THE NATIONAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM ..................................................................... 81 Circulation: 3,800 copies THE 2010 JUDICIAL REFORM: DOES IT BRING THE UKRAINIAN JUSTICE ANY CLOSER TO EUROPEAN STANDARDS? (Expert Discussion) ...................................................................................................... 88 Editorial address: 16 Lavrska str., 2nd floor, Mykola KOZIUBRA, Victor MUSIYAKA, Serhiy HOLOVATY, Roman ZVARYCH, Kyiv, 01015 Mykola ONISHCHUK, Ihor KOLIUSHKO, Mykhailo TSURKAN, Mykola SIRYI, tel.: (380 44) 201-11-98 Natalya PETROVA, Yuri SHEMSHUCHENKO, Pavlo HVOZDIK fax: (380 44) 201-11-99 JUDICIAL REFORM IN UKRAINE: ITS PROGRESS, PROBLEMS e-mail: [email protected] AND PROSPECTS AS SEEN BY NATIONAL EXPERTS AND POLITICIANS web site: www.razumkov.org.ua (Interviews) ................................................................................................................... 98 Oleh BEREZIUK, Valeriy KARPUNTSOV, Serhiy KIVALOV, Vasyl MALIARENKO, Petro SYMONENKO, Vasyl SIRENKO, Mykola SIRYI Reprinted or used materials must refer to “National Security & Defence” ARTICLES ENSURING THE JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN GERMANY Hans- Otto BARTELS .............................................................................................. 109 Photos: “OLEKSANDR VOLKOV vs UKRAINE”: THE ECHR JUDGMENT AND ITS EXECUTION Press Service of the President of Ukraine – р.16 Mykola MELNYK .................................................................................................... 113 Holos Ukrayiny – р.42 JUDICIAL SYSTEMS OF UKRAINE AND THE EU COUNTRIES gazetavv.com – р.87 Ivan NAZAROV ....................................................................................................... 118 ua.euronews.com – р.102 job-sbu.org – р.104 PUBLIC PROSECUTION IN UKRAINE: ITS ROLE AND POSITION AMONG JUDICIAL TOOLS FOR PROTECTION OF THE LEGAL ORDER Serhiy PRYLUTSKYI .............................................................................................. 121 THE BELL THAT TOLLS FOR THE ADVOCACY Serhiy SAFULKO .................................................................................................... 125 © Razumkov Centre, 2013 “Judicial Reform in Ukraine: Progress, Problems and Prospects” was conducted by the Razumkov Centre with the support of the Matra programme of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The publication was supported by the National Endowment for Democracy (USA). JUDICIAL REFORM IN UKRAINE: CURRENT RESULTS, PROSPECTS AND RISKS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL STAGE he process of establishing the judiciary in Ukraine since its independence has been quite inconsistent Tand contradictory – not only due to its heritage, but also because it has often been accompanied by acute political confrontation and attempts of opposing political forces and governmental teams to gain control over the judiciary. Reformation activity that was initiated and implemented in this period did not lead to establishment of an independent and fair court in Ukraine. After the 2010 Presidential Election, the new President Viktor Yanukovych announced that another judicial reform was going to take place, which led to dramatic changes in the national judiciary. Analysis of these changes and their consequences gives reasons to assume that, through this reform, the President managed to enhance his control over judicial authority, to restrict its independence, and to weaken self-government of judges. Significant rotation amongst judges also took place. In general, it has considerably deteriorated judicial situation in Ukraine. Today, the judicial reform has reached its final – constitutional – stage. On 10 October 2013, the Verkhovna Rada pre-approved the Presidential draft Law “On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine Strengthening the Independence of Judges”. The corresponding Decree of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine was supported by 244 deputies. All opposition factions of the Parliament (Batkivshchyna, UDAR, Svoboda) manifested against adoption of the law claiming that implementation of its provisions would compromise not only the judicial independence, but also the democracy in Ukraine. The course of preparation and adoption of this draft Law (obtaining, inter alia, positive resolution of the Venice Commission) revealed tendencies that have been characteristic of the 2010 judiciary reform since its initiation. Thus, national legislation in the recent years has been using European standards in quite a peculiar way by borrowing the form and filling it up with “appropriate” contents. In fact, what we have now is not an approximation of national laws to international judicial norms and standards, but adjusting these norms to situational needs by using controlled and dependent judiciary in Ukraine. Hence, this is a selective adoption of recommendations and guidelines of international institutions. As it is widely known, the Venice Commission gave a generally positive opinion on the draft Law mentioned above. It was this draft (as well as the resolution of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the declaration signed by 30 deputies of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) that the President’s representative and deputies of the Party of the Regions faction mostly relied on when encouraging their colleagues to support pre-approving the bill. Accepting the above-mentioned documents of European institutions we should obviously have some reservations. Firstly, the draft law contains genuine “European” provisions able to deceive European structures that evaluate new laws from their own European perspective. Secondly, current evaluations of the “Ukrainian progress” by European institutions have somewhat enforced nature stipulated by soon-to-happen Vilnius summit and possibly by the Association Agreement to be signed between the European Union and Ukraine at the summit. While mainly stressing its positive progress towards the association, Europe also seeks to maintain Ukraine’s European integration prospects. Thirdly, there are reasons to assume that current authorities have used peculiar means to push its legislative initiatives not only inside (in the Parliament and Constitutional Court), but also outside the country – on the international realm. Preliminary approval of the Presidential draft Law on amending the Constitution has had a dramatic impact on the judicial reform. On the one hand, it has enabled to legitimise the key legislative changes approved in 2010 and to enshrine provisions in the Constitutions, implementation of which may politicise the judiciary to an even bigger extent and increase the dependence of judges. On the other hand, it has generated a political and expert discussion aimed at searching for a compromise, which results might involve the following: excluding the most risky provisions for the independence of judges and courts, at least, and preparing a new bill approved by all key political forces of the country, at best. Current situation calls for ensuring fair and independent justice, as well as stimulates governmental representatives, opposition and the society to look for optimal ways out. The analytical report consists of four chapters. The first outlines general features of international documents that guarantee human rights to a fair trial and provides chapter documents’ extracts essential for “young democracies” that Ukraine belongs to. The second chapter gives brief analysis of the progress, current results and consequences of the 2010 judicial reform.1 The third describes the process of the constitutional stage of the judicial reform and provides a detailed analysis of the chapter draft Law “On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine Strengthening the Independence of Judges”. The fourth makes general conclusions as well as offers proposals and recommendations