AntAC Newsletter

Dear friends!

Your are interested in Ukraine and willing to follow the most recent anti-corruption developments in the country?

Then subscribe to our regular (weekly) updates.

We are covering:

1. The most burning successes and challenges of the anti-corruption reform in Ukraine

2. State of implementation by Ukraine of international obligations and commitments in the area of the anti-corruption

3. The most crucial and fresh cases of corruption investigations and revelations from journalists and law enforcement agencies of Ukraine

More news and publications in English are available at our webpage; the most recent and burning anti-corruption news in English we tweet here.

Yours, Anti-corruption Action Centre

  1. Subscribe to our weekly updates

Holding those responsible for syphoning money from procurements.

Watchdogging for public procurement of drugs.

Map Ukrainian Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs)

Foreign partners condition Ukraine to fight corruption. We are monitoring how Ukraine implements these obligations.

Exploring corruption and learn to fight it.

Helping to return the money stolen by corrupt officials back to Ukraine.

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