Endemic Challenges in Ukraine’s Judicial System

As Ukraine wages a titanic battle for her sovereignty against Russian aggression, another quieter struggle is being waged within her own borders: the fight for justice. It is a war of institutions, not weapons; of precedent, not territory. And at the centre of this battlefield stands Ukraine’s court system—formally independent, constitutionally empowered, but in practice long discredited by a legacy of corruption, political interference, and systemic dysfunction.

To understand the problem, it is necessary to examine the ingrained problems plaguing the Ukrainian judiciary, tracing their historical origins, studying the persistence of contemporary judicial capture, analysing reforms attempted and abandoned, and proposing a path toward the credible rule of law that is so essential for Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction and her European ambitions.

A System Reborn in Name but Not in Practice

Ukraine inherited her judicial framework from the Soviet Union—a system where courts served as enforcers of state power, not independent adjudicators of rights. Judges were bureaucrats, not jurists. Trials were often pro forma exercises in legitimising the actions of the state. Although independence in 1991 brought the constitutional promise of separation of powers, in practice Ukraine’s judiciary has remained a deeply politicised and opaque institution.

Today Ukraine’s court system includes:

• Local and appellate courts, responsible for civil, administrative, and criminal cases.

  
  

• The Supreme Court, with several specialised chambers.

  
  

• The Constitutional Court, tasked with safeguarding the Constitution.

  
  

• The High Council of Justice (HCJ) and High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ), which govern appointments and discipline.

Yet despite institutional variety, a pervasive rot of mistrust infects the entire system. Public opinion polls consistently show that fewer than 20% of Ukrainians trust the courts, while allegations of bribery, political manipulation and selective justice abound.

Symptoms of a Dysfunctional Judiciary

Ukraine’s court system is not simply inefficient. It is widely seen as compromised, plagued by several persistent structural problems:

1. Judicial Corruption

Bribes remain a common feature of judicial outcomes, particularly in commercial disputes, land law and high-value criminal cases. This is facilitated by:

• Opaque case assignments to individual members of the judiciary

• Poorly paid judges (especially at lower levels)

• Lack of real-time asset monitoring for Judges

Reform efforts such as electronic asset declarations have helped, but many judges still operate within informal networks of mutual protection.

2. Political Interference

Although the Constitution guarantees judicial independence, courts are often tools of political power. Judges in high-profile cases (e.g. involving oligarchs or officials) may be subject to:

• Pressure from the President’s Office

• Influence via the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU)

• Coordinated rulings driven by informal phone calls or threats of disciplinary action

The judicial branch is not yet institutionally insulated from Ukraine’s executive elite.

3. Lack of Accountability

Judges are rarely disciplined or removed, even in cases of clear misconduct. The High Council of Justice—the main disciplinary body—has often served as a shield rather than a watchdog. Efforts to reform it have faced internal sabotage.

Notably judges who handed down blatantly illegal decisions during the Euromaidan protests in 2013–2014 remain in post today.

4. Delays and Inefficiency

Ordinary litigants face years-long delays in civil cases. Evidence management is poor. Courtrooms lack basic technological infrastructure. Legal fees can be prohibitive. Appeals processes are abused for delay.

For many Ukrainians, courts are so unresponsive or arbitrary that they are avoided altogether.

5. Selective Justice in Anti-Corruption Cases

Despite the creation of new institutions like the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC), powerful figures remain largely untouched. Prosecutions stall, evidence is dismissed, or charges evaporate in judicial labyrinths.

The result is often high-profile trials with no high-profile jailings.

A Broken Pipeline: How Judges Are Appointed

The Ukrainian Constitution grants life tenure to judges—an important safeguard in theory. But the process by which they are selected and vetted has become a source of deep dysfunction.

The High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) evaluates candidates, while the High Council of Justice (HCJ) makes final appointments. This system has been subject to:

• Cronyism: candidates with ties to sitting judges or influential networks are favoured

• Lack of transparency: interviews and scoring are often arbitrary or subjective

• Failed lustration: attempts to purge judges from the Yanukovych era (Ukraine's notoriously corrupt pro-Russian President until 2014) or collaborators have faltered due to legal ambiguity and bureaucratic resistance

In 2019–2021, a reform initiative supported by the EU and civil society groups proposed including international experts in judicial selection. But this provoked fierce resistance from vested interests and has seen only partial implementation.

Constitutional Court: Guardian or Saboteur?

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) plays a crucial role in interpreting the nation’s laws. However, it has repeatedly drawn controversy, including:

• Striking down anti-corruption legislation in 2020, which gutted public officials’ asset declarations and enraged reformists

• Blocking judicial reforms proposed by President Zelenskyi, including those tied to EU conditionality

• Being packed with judges loyal to former governments or influential oligarchs

While the Venice Commission and EU bodies have urged reforms, the CCU remains a major obstacle to structural judicial renewal.

War-Time Emergency and Judicial Reform

Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 has created a paradox. On one hand, emergency powers have reduced scrutiny over judicial conduct. On the other, the existential threat to the state has increased demand for national unity and rule-of-law legitimacy.

The EU candidacy granted in 2022 has made judicial reform a cornerstone of Ukraine’s path to membership. This includes:

• Reconstituting the HCJ and HQCJ with international vetting panels

• Digitalising court processes to reduce opportunities for corruption

• Strengthening the independence of the HACC and prosecutorial oversight

Yet implementation remains halting, and political will is uneven. Some judges, fearing Western scrutiny, have resigned early or sought cover through horizontal internal appointments.

Towards a Credible Judiciary: What Must Be Done?

If Ukraine is to win not only the war against Russia but the peace that follows, she must reimagine her justice system. This requires:

1. Full international oversight of judicial appointments, particularly in the High Council of Justice

   
   

2. Creation of a new judicial ethics body with public reporting mandates

   
   

3. Constitutional reform of the CCU to depoliticise appointments and prevent sabotage of anti-corruption laws

   
   

4. Mass digitalisation and transparency: real-time case tracking, judge performance metrics, and courtroom livestreams

   
   

5. Whistleblower protections for court staff, clerks, and lawyers

   
   

6. Rotation or retraining of judges from high-risk regions and former Soviet cadres

This is not simply a technical matter. The credibility of Ukraine’s justice system will define the viability of post-war reconstruction, foreign investment, and public trust in democratic governance.

The Battle Within

While Ukrainian soldiers fight on the outskirts of Bakhmut and at Robotyne, another battle is unfolding within the courtrooms of Kyiv, Kharkiv and Odesa—a battle for integrity, independence, and the very meaning of law in a post-Soviet republic.

Judicial reform cannot be deferred until the war ends. It must proceed in parallel, as an act of national defence. For no amount of foreign aid, military victory, or patriotic rhetoric will matter if the courts are still seen as for sale.

Ultimately it is justice—not arms—that will determine whether Ukraine’s democracy endures.