The HCJ Becomes More Open with Information

One significant shift is the numerous steps taken by the HCJ to increase the Council’s information openness.

For instance, in 2023, the HCJ revised its decision to hold non-public interviews with HQCJ candidates and held such interviews with online broadcasting. This was preceded by the HCJ initiative to hold interviews behind closed doors, i.e., without broadcasting and with publication of the results only following the interview stage — something that was broadly criticized by civil society. Among other things, we mentioned that due to the high public interest in the formation of the new HQCJ and its role in the judicial reform, recruitment had to take place in the most transparent way possible. While the very idea of the HCJ to hold these interviews non-publicly was highly negative, it should be noted and supported that the Council eventually listened to public calls to reconsider.

Another positive step was the HCJ’s decision to broadcast its meetings online on its website and on YouTube. In 2019, the previous composition of the HCJ stopped all broadcasting without any grounds or explanations. Fortunately, the “new” High Council of Justice made the opposite decision, demonstrating its readiness to work transparently. It is worth noting, however, that the HCJ does stop broadcasting for certain cases without sufficient motivation, e.g., while considering the HQCJ recommendation on dismissal of judge Halyna Yanenko from office.

Furthermore, It was commendable that the HCJ decided to publish its decisions in the open data form with recording of roll-call voting. Even though these data sets have some shortcomings, they make the Council significantly more transparent in terms of information and provide for an opportunity to analyze its activities and track what position was supported by a certain HCJ member in a certain case.

Eventually, the HCJ started publishing data sets with information on the automatic distribution of all materials it receives, not just disciplinary cases, in the open data form. In addition, the HCJ added historical data to the data set (starting from 2017) and new metadata on automatic distribution (probably all metadata currently collected by the HCJ). Presently, the HCJ is the only agency not just in the judiciary, but overall, which published information on automatic distribution of materials received in such great detail and for such a significant period of time.

It is worth noting that the listed changes stem from direct legislative norms that were introduced at one time or another in 2023. However, it is also commendable that the HCJ is ready to implement these changes in a way to ensure that they effectively achieve the set goal and improve the Council’s transparency.