After resuming its activities, the HQCJ continued assessing the 2019 candidates for vacant positions of judges and submitted to the HCJ several hundred recommendations on appointment of such candidates.
Even though the key role in this selection is played by the HQCJ, the HCJ’s role is also crucial. Under Article 37, part 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On the High Council of Justice,” the Council may decide to refuse submitting a candidate for appointment on the position to the President of Ukraine under Article 79, part nineteen, clause 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” only based on substantiated information received by the High Council of Justice pursuant to the law if:
●
such information was not considered by the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine;
●
the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine did not give a proper assessment to such information within the qualification assessment procedure for the respective candidate.
Thus, the HCJ not only can but has to verify candidates for judicial positions in addition to the HQCJ to make sure they meet the requirements for the position of a judge, including requirements regarding their level of personal qualities and integrity. In practice, the HCJ does not do this.
One example is the situation with the candidate for the position of judge Holub of Vinkovetskyi Raion Court of Khmelnytskyi Oblast. The candidate’s interview at the HQCJ on February 8, 2024, revealed that in 2010, he was brought to administrative liability for refusing to take an alcohol test (Art. 130, part 1 of the Administrative Code). Back then, the court closed the case on the grounds of insignificance. Holub did not report this in his Declaration of Integrity and in his candidate questionnaire (he only mentioned being brought to liability under Art. 124 of the Administrative Code in 2018). When a member of the HQCJ asked whether he was ever brought to liability for drunk driving, he did not answer this question (and only “remembered” this incident after the interviewers mentioned it). The HQCJ decided to recommend his appointment but did not give the candidate a meaningful assessment in its decision.
This issue was raised again at the HCJ during the interview on April 9, 2024, and Holub once again claimed that he had forgotten about this. However, such explanations raise reasonable doubts, since the candidate did remember being brought to administrative liability under Art. 124 of the Administrative Code in 2011.
Later, at an interview on April 25, 2024, he also explained how his wife purchased an apartment in Lviv in 2018 for only USD 20,000 — the reason for such a low price that he cited was that the previous owners wanted to sell the place as quickly as possible.
Despite such contradictory explanations, the HCJ did not question the candidate’s integrity, and the Council decided that he could be appointed to the position of a judge.
It should be emphasized that from the moment of appointment as a judge, an individual enjoys all the guarantees of judicial independence, and dismissing them for lack of integrity, including acquisition of property in a questionable way (e.g., for unexplained funds or at a deflated price) is much harder. Thus, the HCJ should be even more rigorous while assessing candidates for positions of judges.
