The High Qualification Commission of Judges Tends to Neglect Negative Opinions on Candidates to the New Supreme Court

From April 21st the High Qualification Commission of Judges started interviews with candidates for the new Supreme Court.

As of April 28, selection panels of the HQCJ interviewed 36 candidates with negative opinions or negative information from the Public Integrity Council.

Panels neglected 27 candidates with negative conclusions of Public Integrity Council. Decision on further participation of these candidates in the competition will be adopted by HQCJ: 11 of 16 votes of members of the Commission are required to adopt positive decision.

However, HQCJ as of now failed to provide for publication of individual scores of its members. It also failed to provide for publication of personalized results of voting for adoption/disregarding of conclusion of the Public Integrity Council. Without this members of the Commission do not bear individual responsibility for their votings and  the public have limited information on whether decisions were fair. There should be adopted amendments to the Rules of procedure of the Commission  to make public both individual scores that each member gave to each candidate and personalized results of voting on consideration of opinions of Public Integrity Council.

As a result of interviews panels of High Qualification Commission of Judges shall score the candidates and form rating of candidates according to scores they received.

During the interviews panels of HQCJ also consider negative opinions of the Public Integrity Council, which, according to the law on judiciary, may result in elimination of a candidate from the competition.

If the panel does not disqualify the candidate based on negative opinion of the Public Integrity Council, decision to confirm сandidate’s participation in rating must be approved by 11 of 16 members of the HQCJ

Share the news

Also read

All news
Avakov created the secret police department instead of the liquidated economic one
Announcement. The Supreme Court starts turbo regime in case of Surkis’ family and Privatbank. It may cost Ukraine UAH 29 bln
Martynenko’s case: the HACC failed its last attempt to return the prosecutor Perov. He was withdrawn because of slamming the door in the court

subscription

Get the AntAC's news first
By filling in this form, I agree to the terms&conditions Privacy Policy