Matrix_2022_eng.pdf

UKRAINIAN JUSTICE
MATRIX:
ASSESSMENT OF THE UKRAINIAN
JUSTICE SYSTEM
UNDER THE
EU JUSTICE SCOREBOARD 2022
METHODOLOGY
Kyiv, 2022

Authors:
Roman Smaliuk, expert of the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform, project manager
Tetiana Ruda, PhD., expert of the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform
The authors express their gratitude to the experts of the Regional Public Charitable
Foundation “Law and Democracy” and Yevhen Krapyvin (Centre of Policy and Legal Reform)
for their help in preparing this study.
This publication was produced with the support of the European Union and the International
Renaissance Foundation within the framework of the EU4USociety project. Its contents are the
sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union
and the International Renaissance Foundation.
The European Union is made up of 27 Member States who have decided to gradually link together
their know-how, resources and destinies. Together, during a period of enlargement of 50 years,
they have built a zone of stability, democracy and sustainable development whilst maintaining
cultural diversity, tolerance and individual freedoms. The European Union is committed to
sharing its achievements and its values with countries and peoples beyond its borders.
The International Renaissance Foundation is one of the largest charitable foundations in
Ukraine. Since 1990 we have been helping to develop an open society based on democratic
values in Ukraine. During its activity, the Foundation has supported about 20 thousand projects,
to which more than 60 thousand activists and organizations of Ukraine have joined. The funding
amounted to over $300 million.
Site: www.irf.ua
Facebook: www.fb.com/irf.ukraine

3
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM OF UKRAINE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
SECTION 1. EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE SYSTEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.1. Developments in caseload. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2. General data on efficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
estimated length of proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
clearance rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
pending cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
CONCLUSIONS FOR SECTION 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
SECTION 2. QUALITY OF JUSTICE SYSTEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1. Accessibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
legal aid, court fees and legal fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
accessing alternative dispute resolution methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
specific arrangements for access to justice of persons with disabilities. . . . . . 28
judicial control over public administration in business-related scenarios. . . . 30
child-friendly justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2. Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
financial resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
human resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.3. Assessment tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.4. Digitalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
digital ready rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
use of digital tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
online access to courts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
access to judgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
SECTION 3. INDEPENDENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.1. Perceived judicial independence and effectiveness
of investment protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.2. Structural independence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
safeguards relating to the functioning of national prosecution services . . . . . 62
independence of Bars and lawyers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4
INTRODUCTION
Political statements and policy documents, which declare the goal of bringing the Ukrainian
justice system in line with European standards and best practices of the European Union
(hereinafter – the EU), usually do not operate with quantitative and qualitative indicators of
the justice activity compared to the EU countries’ indicators. Instead, in the EU, special tools
are used to evaluate the justice systems, among which is the EU Justice Scoreboard – an
annual review of the justice systems of the member states.
The purpose of the EU Justice Scoreboard is to help the EU and member states
improve the efficiency of their national justice systems by providing objective, reliable, and
comparative data on a range of indicators relevant to the assessment of the effectiveness,
quality, and independence of justice systems. In particular, in the resolution of the
European Parliament of February 11, 2021 №2019/2202(INI) on the implementation of the
EU Association Agreement with Ukraine (para. 46), it is recommended, inter alia, to use the
EU Justice Scoreboard to assess the progress and adjust the reforms ongoing in the area of
justice in Ukraine.
In this study, we attempted to assess the Ukrainian justice system using the EU Justice
Scoreboard methodology (the 2022 publication was used as the basis for the report),
highlight its advantages and disadvantages, and determine further priority directions for
judicial reform in the process of European integration. We hope that this study will become
a starting point for regular assessment of the Ukrainian justice and its comparison with
systems of the EU member states.
It is worth emphasizing that the preparation of this report was conducted in the
conditions of the full-scale invasion by the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine,
which began at the end of February 2022. The war affected all areas of life in Ukraine, and
the justice system is no exception. However, given the peculiarities of the preparation of the
EU Justice Scoreboard report, even though the report is dated 2022, most of the indicators
in it reflect the state of the justice system for 2020-2021. That is why our study includes an
assessment of the Ukrainian justice system in pre-war times. At the same time, despite the
war, the administration of justice in Ukraine did not stop, and timely measures taken by the
state made it possible to ensure its practically uninterrupted operation.

INTRODUCTION
5
Сountries’ symbols
BE Belgium HR Croatia PL Poland
BG Bulgaria IT Italy PT Portugal
CZ Czechia CY Cyprus RO Romania
DK Denmark LV Latvia SI Slovenia
DE Germany LT Lithuania SK Slovakia
EE Estonia LU Luxemburg FI Finland
IE Ireland HU Hungary SE Sweden
EL Greece MT Malta UA Ukraine
ES Spain NL Netherlands
FR France AT Austria

6
GENERAL OVERVIEW
OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
OF UKRAINE
Attempts by the political authorities at the end of 2013 to overturn Ukraine’s European
integration path and the forceful dispersal of a peaceful rally against such a decision
resulted in widespread protests, which later were named the “Revolution of Dignity”. Taking
into account the widespread use of judicial and law enforcement agencies by the political
authorities to persecute the participants of mass protests, one of the demands of the
protesters after the victory of the Revolution was the implementation of a full-fledged judicial
reform. Unfortunately, despite numerous amendments made not only to the legislation,
but also to the Constitution of Ukraine regarding justice, the demand for justice was never
satisfied, since a full-fledged cleansing and renewal of the judicial corps did not happened
and the judicial self-governance bodies, in which judges were the majority, never became
agents of change. At the time of preparing this report (June-September 2022), the Ukrainian
justice system is undergoing yet another stage of judicial reform, which should begin with
the reboot of key bodies in the judicial system – the High Qualification Commission of
Judges of Ukraine and the High Council of Justice.
The High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine is a collegial body of judicial
governance that selects candidates for the judicial position, as well as conducts qualification
assessment of judges. Until 2021, the body was formed according to the quota principle.
Currently, members of the commission are appointed by the High Council of Justice based
on the results of a competition conducted by an independent competition commission
consisting of six members (three representatives from the judiciary and one representative
each from lawyers, scholars, and prosecutors). For the transition period, instead of non-
judicial representatives, international experts who have the right to a tiebreaking vote
were included in the composition of the commission. According to the law, it consists of
16 members, eight of whom are appointed from among judges or retired judges. At the
time of preparing of this report, the procedure for formation of the first composition of the
qualification commission is ongoing.
The High Council of Justice is a collegial body of judicial self-governance that decides on
the appointment, disciplinary action, and dismissal of judges, and takes measures to ensure
the independence of judges. It consists of 21 members, of which 11 are representatives
of the judicial corps. Only candidates who are recommended by an independent entity –
the Ethics Council, which conducts integrity assessment of candidates – can be elected/

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM OF UKRAINE
7
appointed to this body. The Ethics Council is formed according to the same principle as the
competition commission for the selection of members of the High Qualification Commission
of Judges, and international experts were also included in its composition for the transition
period (with the right to a tiebreaking vote).
There is a three-tier system of courts in Ukraine – local courts (717 courts [a large
number of courts do not administer justice due to the temporary occupation of certain
regions of Ukraine]), appellate courts (41 courts), and the Supreme Court, which comprises
and operates as four cassation courts (administrative, civil, commercial, and criminal
courts) and the Grand Chamber. The court system is built on the principle of specialization,
as there are separate networks of general courts (which hear civil, criminal, and certain
categories of administrative cases), commercial courts, and administrative courts. In
September 2019, the High Anti-Corruption Court began its activity as a specialized court
for hearing of criminal cases related to high-level corruption, which functions as a court of
first and appellate instances. The High Court on Intellectual Property Issues is also to be
established, but the selection of judges to this court is currently suspended. In the future, it
is planned to reduce the number of local courts by consolidating judicial districts.
At the beginning of 2022, the number of judicial personnel positions in local and
appellate courts was 7,039, but only 5,022 judicial positions were actually filled with judges.
179 judges administer justice as part of the Supreme Court and 38 judges on the High Anti-
Corruption Court.
The appointment of a judge is carried out on a competitive basis. The High Qualification
Commission of Judges announces and conducts the competition, and based on its results,
it recommends candidates for appointment to the High Council of Justice. Based on the
results of consideration of the recommendations, the High Council of Justice submits to the
President of Ukraine a proposal on the appointment of judges. The President of Ukraine
does not have the authority to reject this recommendation and must issue a decree on the
appointment of a judge within thirty days.
All judges who were appointed before the 2016 constitutional amendments are required
to undergo a qualification assessment, which involves confirming their compliance with the
criteria of competence, integrity, and professional ethics. The evaluation was entrusted
to the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine. The Public Integrity Council,
made up of members of the public, was involved in the assessment. In case of establishing
the facts that may indicate a judge’s non-compliance with the criteria of integrity and
professional ethics, the Council has the right to issue an opinion that must be considered
by the High Qualification Commission of Judges. The qualification assessment was almost
completely failed by the High Qualification Commission of Judges, as less than 1% of judges
who participated in it were dismissed. Currently, the assessment of almost half of the
judges’ corps has yet to be completed.
As part the judicial reform that began with the 2016 constitutional amendments, the
procedural codes, which determine the procedure for consideration of civil, administrative,
and commercial cases, were reissued in the new versions. In particular, the possibility
of resolving a dispute with the participation of a judge was introduced, the scope of writ
proceedings was expanded (simplified trial for cases in which there is no dispute between

UKRAINIAN JUSTICE MATRIX
8
the parties), the procedure for using electronic evidence was regulated, and mechanisms
to prevent the abuse of procedural rights by participants were introduced. However, the
legislative amendments did not end there. The justice system in Ukraine has always been
the subject of Parliament’s increased attention. According to our calculations, in 2021,
112 draft laws related to the operation of the justice system were introduced and 21 laws
were adopted. Unlike in the EU countries, it is typical for Ukraine that a large number of
legislative initiatives do not receive the Parliament’s support. Insufficient attention is paid
to the development and adoption of legislative initiatives regarding alternative dispute
resolution methods and the introduction of artificial intelligence in the justice system in
Ukraine. Furthermore, unlike in the EU countries, where significant attention was paid to
the legal regulation of the status of judges and legal professionals in 2021, no law on this
issue was adopted in Ukraine (despite more than 20 draft laws submitted for Parliament’s
consideration).
Thus, starting in 2014, the Ukrainian justice system has undergone numerous
transformations and, as of 2022, is on the verge of a new stage of judicial reform.

9
SECTION 1.
EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE
SYSTEMS
1.1. Developments in caseload
Figure 1 (3*)1
Number of incoming civil, commercial, administrative and other cases in
2012, 2018-2020 (1st
instance/per 100 inhabitants):
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
DK AT PL SI EE HR LV SK CZ FI BE LT PT RO NL EL HU ES BG IT IE SE UA CYMTLU FR
2012 2018 2019 2020
1
Hereinafter throughout the text, the starred number in parenthesis denotes the indicator number in the EU
Justice Scoreboard 2022 report .

10
Figure 2 (4*) Number of incoming civil and commercial litigious cases in 2012, 2018-2020
(1st
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
RO BE LT IE CZ HR ES PL PT SK EL IT FR LV SI DE MT EE HU UA LU AT NL DK SE FI
2012 2018 2019 2020
Figure 3 (5*) Number of incoming administrative cases in 2012, 2018-2020
(1st
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
SE DE UA NL LT AT FI BG EL RO ES CY FR HRHU EE PT PL LU BE SI CZ SK LV IT MT
2012 2018 2019 2020
In 2020, 2.6 non-criminal cases per 100 residents were submitted to courts of first
instance in Ukraine, almost half of which (1.27 cases) were civil and comercial cases where
there is a dispute between the parties2
, and 23% (0.61 cases) were administrative cases.
The median value of this indicator for the EU countries in 2020 was 6.8 cases. Thus, the
level of incoming cases in Ukraine in relation to the population is relatively low. Ukraine is
in the top three countries only by the incoming administrative cases.
2
Such categories of disputes include trial cases and bankruptcy cases.

SECTION 1. EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE SYSTEMS
11
There are several reasons for such difference. First of all, it is the methodology for
calculation, since the indicators are calculated per 100 residents, and Ukraine has one
of the largest populations among the EU countries. For example, in France, which is the
second most populous country in the EU, 2.1 non-criminal cases were submitted to the
courts of first instance in 2020. This indicator is also significantly lower than the European
average for Italy and Spain (4.5 and 4.9 cases, respectively), whose population is also one
of the largest in the EU.
However, this is not the main reason that explains such a difference, since, for example,
in Poland, whose population only slightly differs from Ukraine’s, as many as 27.6 non-criminal
cases were submitted to the courts of first instance in 2020, which is one of the highest
indicators among the EU countries. The main reason for the differences that are present
relates to the jurisdiction of the courts, since in some EU countries, the courts consider a
large number of cases in which there is no dispute between the parties. For example, in
Denmark, where in 2020 the first instance courts received almost 48 non-criminal cases
per 100 residents, which is the highest rate among EU countries, the number of civil and
commercial cases in which there was a dispute between the parties is only 0.7 cases per 100
residents. At the same time, Danish courts, apart from hearing “classic” civil cases, also deal
with the registration of rights to real estate, certify signatures on documents, and resolve
issues related to inheritance administration3
. The situation is identical in Austria, where
out of 35 cases per 100 residents, only 0.8 are cases where there is a dispute between the
parties. So, the reason for the large number of cases that come to the courts of the first
instance in the EU countries is primarily that the courts are entrusted with the performance
of functions that are not typical for them, namely, the consideration of cases in which there
is no dispute between the parties.
Thus, the Ukrainian judicial system does not differ significantly from the systems of
the EU member states in terms of the number of incoming non-criminal cases in which
there is a dispute between the parties. The level of incoming civil and commercial cases is
somewhat lower than the average European indicator, while that of administrative cases is,
by contrast, twice as high.
1.2. General data on efficiency
estimated length of proceedings
The indicators under this sub-section do not calculate the average time needed to resolve
a case, but the estimated minimum time that a court would need to clear the number of
unresolved cases at the end of the relevant period, taking into account the current working
conditions of the court (disposition time)4
. In essence, according to these indicators, a larger
number of days indicates that it will take the court longer to resolve a case.
3
A Closer Look at the Courts of Denmark // Available at: https://domstol.dk/media/jqhg2psf/a-closer-look-at-
the-courts-of-denmark.pdf.
4
Calculated by dividing the number of unresolved cases at the end of the relevant year by the number of
resolved cases and multiplied by 365.

12
Figure 4 (6*) Estimated time needed to resolve civil, commercial, administrative and other
cases in 2012, 2018-2020 (1st instance/in days):
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
DK EE LV AT LT SI HU SK NL FI BG PL HR SE UA LU CZ RO ES MT IT FR EL PT CY
2012 2018 2019 2020
In Ukraine in 2020, the disposition time for the first instance courts to clear the balance
of unresolved non-criminal cases was 138 days. Compared to previous years, there is a clear
trend towards its increase (since 2012, the duration has almost tripled). Thus, it becomes
increasingly difficult for the Ukrainian courts to promptly consider incoming cases every
year. This is caused primarily by the personnel deficit, which has been observed in the
judicial system for the past few years and is increasing every year.
As can be seen from the figure, Ukraine’s result is average for EU countries. In 10
countries, this indicator is less than 100 days, in 5 countries – from 100 to 150 days, and
in 7 countries – more than 150 days. The “leaders” are Cyprus, France, and Italy, where the
courts of first instance need as many as 1,087, 554, and 471 days, respectively to resolve
all pending cases.

13
Figure 5 (7*) Estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases at first
instance in 2012, 2018-2020 (1st/ in days):
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
LT NL EE AT SE LU CZ HU RO UA DK SK DE LV PT FI PL SI ES MT EL FR HR IT
2012 2018 2019 2020
Figure 6 (8*) Estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases at all
court instances in 2020 (1st, 2nd and 3rd instance/in days):
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
SI LV AT UA DE PT SE FI CZ HU PL EE BGRO SK DK LU LT NL BE HR FRMT ES IT
First instance Second instance Third instance
According to the data for Figure 5 (7*), the estimated time needed for the courts of
first instance to clear the balance of pending civil and commercial cases in which there
is a dispute between the parties is somewhat higher, and amounted to 170 days in 2020.
Similarly to Figure 4 (6*), there is a trend towards increase in the time to clear the backlog of
cases. However, this is a relatively good result, since there are as many as 13 EU countries
where this indicator exceeds 200 days.

14
The Ukrainian judicial system also shows a good result in terms of the estimated time
for clearing the backlog of civil and commercial cases in which there is a dispute between
the parties in all court instances. According to Figure 6 (8*), the performance of cassation
courts in Ukraine is one of the most efficient among the EU countries, as it takes only 122
days to clear the backlog of cases, while the median value for EU countries is almost twice
as high (224 days).
Figure 7 (9*) Estimated time needed to resolve administrative cases at first instance in
2012, 2018-2020 (1st instance/in days):
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
SE HU LT BG EE PL HR UA LV FI NL CZ FR AT BE ES DE SI LU EL SK RO PT IT CY MT
2012 2018 2019 2020
Regarding the clearance of pending administrative cases, Ukraine’s result is somewhat
worse. In 2020, this indicator amounted to as many as 203 days for first instance courts
(Figure 7 (9*)). Even compared to 2018, it deteriorated by almost twice, and compared to
2012 – by more than six times. That is, there is a trend towards significant decrease of
the efficiency of administrative proceedings in Ukraine. However, even this result is much
better than in most EU countries, since in 18 countries it exceeds 220 days. Regarding the
clearance of pending administrative cases in all court instances (Figure 8 (10*)), again, the
courts of cassation (Cassation Administrative Court within the Supreme Court) show one
of the best results among the EU countries (144 days compared to the median value of
281 days).

15
Figure 8 (10*) Estimated time needed to resolve administrative cases at all court instances
in 2020 (1st
, 2nd
, 3rd
instance/in days):
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
HU BG SE SI UA AT DE EE FI FR PL RO LT LV PT CZ NL ES LU SK BE IT MT HR EL CY
First instance Second instance Third instance
Ukraine’s results with regard to Figures 4-8 showed that the Ukrainian judicial system
is quite effective in comparison with the EU countries. The approximate time for clearing
the backlogs in non-criminal cases by the Ukrainian courts is average compared to EU
countries, and for some categories of cases (for example, administrative cases) it is even
one of the lowest. Ukraine’s results in 2018-2020 were negatively affected by the personnel
deficit, which deteriorated every year, but even taking into account this factor, the result is
significantly better than in most EU countries.
clearance rate
The clearance rate is the ratio of the number of resolved cases over the number of incoming
cases. This indicator reflects the capacity of the judicial system to keeping up with the flow
of incoming caseload. A 100% or higher clearance rate means the courts are successfully
coping with the existing caseload. A result of less than 100% means that the courts are
overloaded – i.e., they are unable to resolve the incoming caseload which, as a result,
negatively affects the duration their hearing.

16
Figure 9 (11*) Rate of resolving civil, commercial, administrative and other cases in 2012,
2018-2020 (1st
instance/in %):
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
IE CY ES MT FR UA LU LT RO BE CZ HU NL SI LV AT DK BG EE SE IT HR PL FI SK PT EL
2012 2018 2019 2020
In 2020 in Ukraine, the courts of first instance considered only 94% of incoming non-
criminal cases. For administrative cases, this indicator is even worse and is only 81%
(Figure 11 (13*)), which is one of the lowest results among EU countries. The situation with
the hearing of civil and commercial cases in which there is a dispute between the parties
by first instance courts is somewhat better, since the result for such categories of disputes
is almost 99%.
Figure 10 (12*) Rate of resolving litigious civil and commercial cases in 2012, 2018-2020
(1st instance/in %):
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
IE HR ES MTLU FR FI LT LV PT CZ DE UA BE SK NL EE AT ROHU SI SE IT PL DK EL
2012 2018 2019 2020

17
Figure 11 (13*) Rate of resolving administrative cases in 2012, 2018-2020
(1st instance/in %):
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
RO UA CY NL SK LUHU EE PL FR LT FI ES BG SE MT SI HR LV BE DE CZ AT PT IT EL
2012 2018 2019 2020
According to Figures 9 (11*) and 11 (13*), a trend towards significant decrease in the
case clearance rate compared to previous years can be clearly observed. In particular, in
2012, the case clearance rate for administrative cases by first instance courts was as much
as 130%. Thus, in eight years, this indicator fell by more than 30%. A similar (although
somewhat lower) dynamics is observed for civil and commercial cases in which there is
a dispute between the parties, where the indicator fell by more than 15% compared to
2012, even though the result was relatively stable in 2018-2020. As mentioned above, this
dynamic is due to the worsening personnel deficit in the judicial system after 2014.
The situation is not much better in the EU countries than in Ukraine. In particular,
in 2020, 63% of countries had the case clearance rate for non-criminal cases by the first
instance courts of less than 100%. For civil and commercial cases in which there is a dispute
between the parties, the indicator is even worse, as the courts of first instance in only 29%
of countries are effectively dealing with the number of incoming cases.
pending cases
Similarly to the clearance rate, the number of pending cases that remains to be resolved by
the end of the year is an important indicator of the effectiveness of the judicial system. The
increase in the number of pending cases is an indication of the courts being overloaded
and unable to cope with the number of incoming new cases.

18
Figure 12 (14*) Number of pending civil, commercial and administrative and other cases in
2012, 2018-2020 (1st
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
LU SE UA LT BG HU LV NL EE MT DK FI FR RO SK CZ ES SI IT AT CY HR EL PL PT
2012 2018 2019 2020
According to our calculations, at the end of 2020, there was almost one non-criminal
case pending in the courts of first instance per 100 residents in Ukraine. Again, there is a
clear trend towards deterioration, as in 2012, this rate was 0.57 cases, in 2018 – 0.71 cases,
in 2019 – 0.76 cases. A similar trend is observed both for civil and commercial cases in
which there is a dispute between the parties and for administrative cases (Figures 13 (15*),
14 (16*)).
Figure 13 (15*) Number of pending litigious civil and commercial cases in 2012, 2018-2020
(1st instance/per 100 inhabitants):
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
FI NL SE AT DK LU EE UA HU DE LV LT SK CZ SI PT MT PL FR ES RO EL IT HR
2012 2018 2019 2020

19
Figure 14 (16*) Number of pending administrative cases in 2012, 2018-2020
(1st instance/per 100 inhabitants):
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
LV MT PL EE HU CZ SK BG LT HR SI BE LU IT UA FR FI ES RO NL SE PT CY AT DE EL
2012 2018 2019 2020
Ukraine’s result as compared to the EU countries is a good one. At the end of 2020, 20
of the EU members states had more than one pending non-criminal case per 100 residents,
with the median value being 2.7 cases. Regarding both civil and commercial cases in which
there is a dispute between the parties and administrative cases (0.58 and 0.28 cases per
100 residents at the end of 2020, respectively), Ukraine’s result is average.

20
CONCLUSIONS FOR SECTION 1
1. In 2020, 2.6 non-criminal cases per 100 residents were received by the first instance
courts in Ukraine, which is more than twice below the median value among EU countries.
At the same time, the indicator for the level of incoming civil and commercial cases in
which there is a dispute between the parties (1.3 cases per 100 residents) in Ukraine
differs insignificantly from the European average, while in terms of the level of incoming
administrative cases (0.6 cases per 100 residents), Ukraine – by contrast – is one of the
leaders among the EU countries. Such differences are due primarily to the fact that in many
EU countries, the jurisdiction of the courts includes consideration of many categories of
cases in which there is no dispute between the parties.
2. Ukraine’s results in terms of the estimated time to clear the backlog of cases showed
that the Ukrainian judicial system is quite effective in comparison with the EU countries.
In particular, only 170 days are need for the first instance courts to clear the backlog of
pending civil and commercial cases in which there is a dispute between the parties (for 13
EU countries, this indicator exceeds 200 days), and 203 days are needed to clear for the
backlog of administrative cases (for 18 EU countries, this indicator exceeds 220 days).
3. On average, in 2020, the Ukrainian courts resolved 94% of incoming non-criminal
cases (for civil and commercial cases in which there is a dispute between the parties, this
indicator was 99%, and for administrative cases – only 81%). This is not the worst indicator
among the EU countries, since as many as 63% of countries have the level of non-criminal
cases resolved by the first instance courts of less than 100%.
4. At the end of 2020, there was almost one non-criminal case pending in courts of first
instance per 100 residents in Ukraine. This is quite a good result, since the median indicator
among the EU countries is 2.7 cases per 100 residents.
5. Ukraine’s results for the indicators of the estimated disposition time (time to
clear the backlog of cases), the clearance rate, and the number of pending cases show a
significant decrease in the efficiency of the judiciary in recent years. Compared to 2012, the
estimated time to clear the backlog of cases has almost tripled, the clearance rate of cases
has decreased by 20% (while for administrative cases, this indicator has fallen by as much
as 38% – from 130% to 81%), and the number of pending cases has almost doubled. This
is mainly explained by the shortage of judges which, starting from 2014, is being felt more
and more acutely. The resumption of the activity of the High Qualification Commission of
Judges of Ukraine, which should occur approximately in late 2022/early 2023, will allow to
fill the existing vacancies of judges and eventually stabilize the mentioned indicators.

21
SECTION 2.
QUALITY OF JUSTICE
SYSTEMS
2.1. Accessibility
legal aid, court fees and legal fees
Figure 15 (25*) Income threshold for legal aid in a specific consumer case, 2021
(differences in % from Eurostat poverty threshold5
):
-70%
-50%
-30%
-10%
10%
30%
50%
70%
90%
110%
130%
150%
DK ES EL IT DE BE LV LT UA NL SE IE SI MT BG LU FI SK FR HR RO HU
Full legal aid Partial legal aid
Notes:
1. For the purposes of calculating this indicator, a specific case on the protection of consumer rights is understood
as a dispute between a consumer (a 35-year-old, unmarried, employed person, without any dependents and
legal expenses insurance, with a regular income and a rented apartment) and a company, with a stated claim in
the amount of EUR 6 thousand;
2. In Ukraine, full legal aid is not provided – i.e., the state does not cover all costs related to court proceedings
(including the payment of court fees), and therefore the indicator was calculated exclusively for partial legal aid.
In Ukraine, free legal aid guaranteed by the state is divided into primary and secondary
aid. Primary legal aid consists of informing a person on his/her rights, the procedure for
their implementation or restoration in the event of a violation, as well as the procedure
for appealing the actions of the authorities. It covers the provision of legal information,
consultations, interpretations, and preparation of non-procedural legal documents. All
5
Because Eurostat does not set the poverty threshold for Ukraine, the indicator was calculated by taking into
account the actual amount of subsistence minimum as of December 2021 (UAH 4,662/EUR 151): https://www.
msp.gov.ua/news/21281.html.

22
persons under Ukraine’s jurisdiction have the right to such aid, and such aid is provided by
executive authorities, local self-government bodies, individuals and private legal entities,
specialized institutions (which may be formed by local self-government bodies), and free
secondary legal aid centers.
Secondary legal aid consists of creation of equal opportunities for individuals to
access justice, and covers such types of legal services as defense in criminal proceedings,
representation of the interests (in courts or before other persons), as well as preparation
of procedural documents. Such legal aid is provided by the free secondary legal aid centers
and specially selected lawyers who are included in the relevant register.
A person is entitled to receive free secondary legal aid if his/her income is less than
two subsistence minimums (UAH 4.7 thousand/EUR 154 for an employment-capable
person in 2021). That is, the difference with the poverty threshold is insignificant (about
+2%). At the same time, if the poverty threshold is calculated as 60% of the average salary
(UAH 14 thousand/EUR 453), then the referenced indicator is as much as -77%. In essence,
this indicates that free secondary legal aid is available only to the poorest, and even a
person who earns the minimum wage (UAH 6.5 thousand/EUR 210) is not entitled to it (for
example, in 2021, free secondary legal aid in non-criminal cases was provided in almost
86,000 cases6
).
Ukraine’s indicator differs from the general European trend. In most of the EU countries,
a person has the right to legal aid even if his/her income is significantly higher than the
poverty threshold. This ensures better access to justice for people with low incomes. In
Czech Republic, Austria, and Poland, there is no reference to a specific amount of income
at all, and the decision on the provision of legal aid is within a judge’s discretion.
Recommendations:
• revise the level of income that entitles one to free secondary legal aid, tying
it to the minimum wage or to another justified income level that suggests a person’s
inability to hire a lawyer on his/her own. Furthermore, it determining a person’s right
to receive such aid, overall property state (availability of real estate, vehicles, debt
obligations, etc.) must also be taken into account;
• provide the court with discretionary powers to make a decision on the provision
of free secondary legal aid to a person depending on his/her life circumstances.
6
Report on the activity of free legal aid system in 2021 // Available at: https://legalaid.gov.ua/wp-content/
uploads/2022/08/zvitbpd-2021.pdf.

SECTION 2. QUALITY OF JUSTICE SYSTEMS
23
Figure 16 (26*) Court fee to start judicial proceedings in a specific consumer case, 2021
(amount of court fee as a proportion of the value of the claim):
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FR UA BE IT MT SK LT IE DK LU NL SE CZ AT PL SI HU EL LV DE EE HR FI CY BG RO
Court fee for a 6000 euro claim (in %) Court fee for a low value claim (in %)
In Ukraine, consumers are exempt from paying court fees for lawsuits related to the
violation of their rights. This is an atypical situation for EU countries, as only France has
such a benefit.
As a general rule, an individual who applies to the court with a claim of a property
nature must pay a court fee in the amount of 1% of the price of the claim, but not less than
0.4 of the subsistence minimum (UAH 908/EUR 29). This rate is one of the lowest among the
EU countries, because the average court fee for the appeal to the court in a case regarding
consumer rights protection is 4.7% of the claim price. Yet, when looking at the lawsuits in
which the price corresponds to the poverty threshold, Ukraine, on the contrary, has one
of the highest court fees for such lawsuits, at 19.5% of the claim price (only 7 EU countries
have the court fee for such cases exceeding 15%). Thus, in Ukraine, the court fee plays a
deterrent role for applying to court with a small claim. Combined with the undeveloped
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, this worsens access to justice.
It should be noted that in most EU countries, recipients of free legal aid are exempt from
paying the court fees for applying to court. On the other hand, in Ukraine, such persons are
not automatically exempted from paying the court fees and must separately request such
an exemption before the court.

24
Figure 17 (27*) Court fee to start judicial proceedings in a specific commercial case, 2021
(in EUR)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
FR LU BE IE ES CY RODK IT HR SE UA EL SI FI MT LT AT EE BG LV CZ PL NL DE HU SK
Note: for the purposes of calculating this indicator, a specific commercial case means a transnational dispute
between two companies regarding the enforcement of a contract with a EUR 20 thousand claim price.
When applying to a commercial court with a claim of a property nature in Ukraine, the
plaintiff must pay a court fee in the amount of 1.5% of the claim price (EUR 300 for a claim
with a price of EUR 20 thousand). The law does not provide for the payment of any other
fees related to the consideration of the case by the court. Compared to the EU members,
this court fee is low (in 15 countries, the amount is higher and ranges from 2% to 6%).
The data of Figures 16 (26*) and 17 (27*) shows that the judicial system in Ukraine is
inexpensive for citizens and businesses compared to the EU countries. This leads to the
state assuming the major portion of the court system’s costs, as the courts are not “self-
sustaining”. According to the State Judicial Administration, in 20217
, income from the court
fees was only about 20% of all budget allocations for first instance and appellate courts.
Recommendations:
• review the amount of the court fees in order to ensure a balance between
compensation for the costs of the case and effective access to justice;
• create a mechanism for alternative (out-of-court) dispute resolution (for example,
justices of the peace) for hearing of minor cases;
• at the legislative level, exempt persons who receive free secondary legal aid due
to low income from paying the court fees.
7
Report on the Activities of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine for 2021 // Available at: https://lk.lv.
court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/new_folder_for_uploads/dsa/2021.pdf.

25
Figure 18 (28*) Recoverability of legal fees in a commercial trial, 2021: in the EU states,
there are three main systems for reimbursement of the legal aid costs:
• in countries with statutory fee systems, the amount of compensation depends
on the statutory fee and the substance of the work performed by the lawyer (such
mechanism operates in 10 countries);
• in countries in which the amount of payment for legal aid is not defined at the
regulatory level, the reimbursement can be either full or partial;
• in many countries, the amount of costs to be reimbursed is determined by the
court on an individual basis (such mechanism operates in 12 countries).
In Ukraine, the amount of payment for legal aid has not been set at the regulatory
level. The law specifies that the party in whose favor the decision was made has the right
to compensation for incurred court costs (including legal aid costs). At the same time, the
court is authorized to reduce the amount of compensation depending on whether the
amount of incurred expenses is reasonable and proportionate to the subject of the dispute.
The behavior of the party during the trial is also taken into account, including any actions
regarding the settlement of the dispute. In practice, there are frequent cases when the
court reduces the amount of expenses for legal aid declared by the party due to it being
unjustified.
accessing alternative dispute resolution methods
Figure 19 (29*) Promotion of and incentives for using ADR methods, 2021:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LT DE HU DK ES PL LV PT NL EE FR AT UA CZ BG SE LU MT SI SK BE FI IT RO EL IE HR
Note: the maximum number of points for this indicator is 68. Measures taken to encourage the development of
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in four categories of disputes (civil and commercial, labor, consumer,
and administrative) are evaluated. The assessment is carried out separately for each category of disputes
according to 17 indicators (in brackets is the generalized assessment for all categories of disputes in Ukraine):
1) availability of a website providing information on ADR (2 points); 2) conducting of media publicity campaigns
(2 points); 3) availability of brochures for general public (2 points); 4) provision of specific information sessions
on ADR by the court upon request (2 points); 5) availability of a court ADR/mediation coordinator (0 points); 6)
publication of evaluations on the use of ADR (0 points); 7) publication of statistics on the use of ADR (2 points);
8) partial or full coverage by legal aid of costs incurred for ADR (0 points); 9) full or partial refund of court fees,
including stamp duties, if ADR is successful (4 points); 10) requirement to have a lawyer for ADR procedures
(1 point is awarded if the participation of a lawyer is not required) (4 points); 11) judge can act as a mediator
(4 points); 12) agreement reached by the parties becomes enforceable by the court (4 points); 13) possibility

26
to initiate proceedings/file a claim and submit documentary evidence online (2 points, exclusively in court
mediation; other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are not regulated); 14) parties can be informed
of the launch of ADR proceedings and different steps undertaken electronically (2 points, exclusively in court
mediation; other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are not regulated); 15) parties can pay court fees
electronically (2 points, exclusively in court mediation; other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are not
regulated); 16) use of technology (artificial intelligence applications, chat bots) to facilitate the submission and
resolution of disputes (0 points); 17) availability of other means that contribute to alternative dispute resolution
(0 points). For the purposes of calculating this indicator, we use information not only about the measures taken
by the state to promote the ADR development, but also by non-state actors (in this case, the result for the
relevant indicator is divided in half).
The Ukrainian legislation allows the use of a number of mechanisms for ADR (arbitration,
arbitration courts, mediation). As part of the trial, at a preparatory meeting, the judge
finds out whether the parties wish to reconcile (including with the judge as intermediary),
use the services of a mediator, or refer the dispute to arbitration court. However, in
practice, this happens as mere formality, without a detailed explanation of the advantages
and disadvantages of such mechanisms and encouraging the parties to use them. In
combination with the fact that the state does not pursue an active policy of informing about
the possibilities of using ADR mechanisms, public awareness of such mechanisms (and
therefore the frequency of their use) is very low. According to the results of a public opinion
survey conducted in 2021, 77% of respondents knew nothing or almost nothing about the
existence of the possibility of alternative (out-of-court) dispute resolution, another 20%
knew something, but not enough, and only 3% of respondents reported full awareness of
this opportunity8
.
In recent years, activity on ADR has intensified. Legislative amendments to the procedural
codes in 2017 introduced the possibility of dispute settlement with the participation of a
judge in civil, commercial, and administrative cases (so-called “court-annexed mediation”).
Such settlement takes place exclusively with the consent of the parties by conducting joint
(with the participation of all parties and their representatives) and/or closed meetings (with
each of the parties separately) with the judge as an intermediary, in which the parties can
participate via videoconference. During the meetings, the judge invites the parties to submit
their proposals regarding the vision for reconciliation pathways and may also suggest a
possible way of peaceful settlement of the dispute. The judge does not provide the parties
with legal advice and recommendations and does not evaluate the evidence in the case. The
law provides that the term for the peaceful settlement of a dispute with the participation of
a judge cannot exceed 30 days from the date of the court’s ruling on settlement under this
procedure. Each party has the right to withdraw from this procedure at any time. Based on
the results of the settlement, the parties can enter into a settlement agreement, which is
later approved by the court, or terminate the settlement and move forward with the trial of
the case, which will be conducted by a different judge.
8
Survey of the Population of Ukraine on the Trust in Courts and Other Branches of Government, Judicial
Independence and Accountability, and Perceptions of Corruption and Readiness to Report on Its Incidents (April
2021) // Available at: https://newjustice.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021_Survey_Population_Report_
UKR.pdf.

27
In practice, the use of this tool has not yet become widespread. During 2019, only 50
decisions were made on settlement of the dispute with the participation of a judge, and
the parties reached reconciliation in only 12 cases. In 2020, the number of such decisions
increased to 77, and the number of reconciliations to 22 cases9
. In 2021, there were already
99 such decisions (at the same time, more than 60% of them were made in civil cases),
and reconciliation was reached in 28 cases. Given that hundreds of thousands of cases are
pending before courts every year, these indicators are critically low.
Procedural codes encourage peaceful settlement of the dispute, since when the
parties reach a settlement agreement based on a court decision, a portion of the court
fee paid at the time of applying to the court is refunded (50% in the case of a regular
settlement agreement and 60% if reconciliation is reached as part of a mediation
procedure).
It is anticipated that mediation will be actively developed in the coming years. In
November 2021, the Law of Ukraine “On Mediation” 10
was adopted, which for the first
time defined the legal principles and procedure of mediation at the legal level (although
mediation de facto existed even before the adoption of this law).
As mentioned above, the state does not conduct an active information policy on ADR
mechanisms. To a large extent, this function has been taken over by specialized non-
governmental organizations. In particular, the web portal of the Ukrainian Mediation
Center and the National Association of Mediators of Ukraine contains information about
ADR mechanisms in Ukraine. The Association has even developed a special information
brochure for citizens, titled “Mediation and the Judicial System: What? How? Why?” 11
. The
EU project “Pravo-Justice” is also actively working on the popularization of mediation.
In addition to preparing analytical materials12
on mediation in Ukraine, it also produces
various informational materials and guidebooks13
.
Ukraine’s result in this area is average compared to the EU countries and has been
largely achieved thanks to the efforts of CSOs. The state will need to make more efforts to
institutionalize the mediation system and popularize ADR among the population. At the
same time, given the fact that the framework legislation has already been adopted and
that there are capable civic organizations that already function in this area and have the
9
Supreme Court’s Civil Cassation Court Judges: Mediation Should be Introduced for Some Categories of
Family, Labor, Inheritance, and Land Disputes // Available at: https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pres-centr/
news/1157851/.
10
Law of Ukraine No. 1875-IX “On Mediation” of Nov. 16, 2021 // Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/
show/1875-20#Text.
11
Mediation and Court System: What? How? Why? // Available at: http://namu.com.ua/ua/downloads/
promomaterials/DODATOK_6_BROSHURA_MEDIATCHIA_TA_SUD.pdf.
12
Mediation in Civil and Commercial Cases // Available at: https://www.pravojustice.eu/storage/app/uploads/
public/615/5ac/7a6/6155ac7a6e5a3765926585.pdf; Gap-Analysis of the Introduction of Mediation in Ukraine //
Available at: https://www.pravojustice.eu/storage/app/uploads/public/5f5/f7d/2a9/5f5f7d2a9b5cb356474501.pdf.
13
Law on Mediation: Key Provisions // Available at: https://www.pravojustice.eu/storage/app/uploads/public
/61b/212/36e/61b21236e6b21109174169.pdf; Guidelines on Ensuring Access to Mediation in Courts // Available
at: https://www.pravojustice.eu/storage/app/uploads/public/603/75d/2f9/60375d2f92149955873450.pdf; Infor
ma
tion on Opportunities for Reconciliation in Court // Available at: https://www.pravojustice.eu/storage/app/
uploads/public/603/758/4ae/6037584ae6e6a915170122.pdf.

28
relevant experience, it is possible to achieve significant success in this area in the next
few years – provided that the state plays a more active role.
Recommendations:
• regularly conduct information campaigns to increase public awareness of the
opportunities for using ADR mechanisms (targeting both the population generally
and directly the court visitors);
• create a separate section on ADR mechanisms on the official web portal
“Judicial Power of Ukraine”;
• conduct a regular assessment of ADR mechanisms’ implementation (including
by conducting specialized sociological surveys and collecting and analyzing relevant
statistical data).
specific arrangements for access to justice of persons with disabilities
Figure 20 (30*) Specific arrangements for access to justice of persons with disabilities, 2021:
BG DE LV AT BE IE LT PL SK ES NL SI SE CZ DK EE HRHU FI CY LU MT PT UA EL FR IT RO
information in accessible formats (e.g. digital and paper)
Braille/sign language/easy to read and other specific formats are available upon request
accessible digital solutions at first instance court
procedural accommodations
persons with disabilities can be listened to in person and express their will
2020 court survey on needs and satisfaction of persons with disabilities
adjusted ADR procedures
The implementation of special arrangements to ensure unimpeded access to justice
for persons with disabilities is at a low level, as the state does not conduct systematic
work in this area. Although some courts conduct assessments of their own barrier-free
accessibility, the recommendations based on the results of such assessments are largely
not carried out due to the need to allocate significant budget for their implementation.
Ensuring physical accessibility (architectural accessibility) is also complicated, since most
courts in Ukraine are not located in specially adapted premises, which makes impossible
to adapt them without reconstruction. Although visitor surveys conducted annually by the
courts include questions about accessibility of the court and court services for persons with

29
disabilities, these are usually limited to one or two questions, so it cannot be claimed that
such surveys fully cover the research of the needs of persons with disabilities.
There are also problems with ensuring direct participation of persons with disabilities
in court proceedings. Although procedural laws provide for the mandatory participation of
a sign language interpreter in cases involving persons with hearing or speech disabilities,
in practice the procedural status of such interpreters is not properly regulated and there
are often problems with compensation for their involvement, which results in a person with
disability having to pay for their participation at their own expense. In addition, due to the
small number of interpreters who are familiar with legal (court) terminology, it is difficult
to involve them in the cases.
There are also significant problems in obtaining the necessary information. According to
the State Judicial Administration14
, as of the end of 2021, only 44% of courts had the names
of main premises and direction signs reproduced in Braille. Other information about the
work of the court (schedules of hearings, information booklets, etc.) is not reproduced at
all. There are also problems with obtaining information in electronic format. Although there
are versions for people with visual disabilities on the official web portal “Judicial Power of
Ukraine” and the websites of courts, they mostly do not contain the necessary functionality
(font size, spacing, contrast, site colors setting, audio narrative of information content)15
;
thus, it is necessary to use special software separately.
The “Electronic Court” system, which already provides the opportunity to apply to the
court, review case materials, and participate in trials without leaving home, will be able to
improve access to justice for persons with disabilities. At the same time, the functionality
of this system needs to be refined to ensure a full-fledged opportunity for visually disabled
people to work with it.
It should be noted that most measures to improve access to justice for persons with
disabilities in Ukraine are initiated and implemented by specialized civic organizations. In
particular, experts of the Regional Public Charitable Foundation “Law and Democracy”, in
cooperation with the National School of Judges of Ukraine and with the support of the
USAID “Fair Justice” project, developed a series of pilot trainings for judges, court staff, and
court security officers on the peculiarities of working with people with disabilities. They also
organize trainings on the basics of sign language. It is at the initiative of civic organizations
that in recent years projects have been implemented in Ukraine to introduce the service of
special court assistants (court volunteers) who, among other things, will help persons with
disabilities during their stay in the court premises.
In comparison with the EU countries, almost all of the measures listed in this indicator
have been introduced and implemented in Ukraine. However, due to the problems with
financing of the judiciary and inconsistent government policy, these measures have not
been fully implemented at the moment.
14
Report on the Activities of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine for 2021 // Available at: https://lk.lv.
15
As an example of a website that has integrated the needed functionality for access by people with visual
disabilities, please refer to the website of the Association for Protection of Rights of People with Disabilities:
https://psi.org.ua/.

30
Recommendations:
• conduct an audit of the judicial system to determine the extent to which it is
“barrier-free” (including the official websites of the courts) and, based on its results,
develop a strategy for ensuring unimpeded access to justice for persons with disabilities
and standards for court interaction with persons with disabilities;
• introduce the practice of preparing annual reports on the state of ensuring
access to justice for persons with disabilities, as well as collecting statistical data on the
participation of persons with disabilities in court proceedings;
• regulate the legal status and procedure for engaging with and confirming
qualification of sign language interpreters;
• develop a special course on effective communication and basics of sign language
for employees of the Court Security Service;
• develop a course on the application of the elements of simplified speech system
for interaction with people with disabilities.
judicial control over public administration in business-related scenarios
Figure 21 (31*) Legal safeguards regarding decisions or inaction of administrative
authorities, 2021:
IT FR BE BG EL ES LU SI CZ DE EE HR CY LV HU NL AT PL PT RO SK SE FI UA
possibility of financial compensation in case of damage caused by administrative decision that was
eventually overturned by the court as ill-founded
court may stay the enforcement of an administrative decision by interim measure
possibility of financial compensation in case of damage caused by administrative silence

31
In Ukraine, an individual or a legal entity has the right to compensation for damages
caused by an illegal decisions, action, or inaction of a state authority. For example,
according to judicial statistics, only district administrative courts issued more than 160,000
documents in 2021 for the execution of decisions where state authorities are debtors, for a
total amount of UAH 2.5 billion (approx. EUR 81,5 million). Furthermore, as a precautionary
measure, a court may suspend the contested administrative act for the duration of a trial.
Thus, the Ukrainian system of administrative justice provides the same procedural
guarantees as most systems of the EU member states. At the same time, significant
problems are observed in Ukraine with the execution of court decisions on recovery of
damages from state authorities. Even the European Court of Human Rights recognized the
systemic nature of this problem (group of cases “Burmych and others v. Ukraine”), which
led to approval by the Government of Ukraine of the National Strategy addressing the
problems of failure to execute judicial decisions by debtors that are a state authority or a
state enterprise, institution, organization, for the period up to 202216
.
child-friendly justice
Figure 22 (32*) Specific arrangements for child-friendly proceedings, 2021 (civil and
criminal/juvenile justice and administrative proceedings):
BG DE EL LV HU EE LT PL DK ES FR HR IT AT FI BE IE NL SI SE CZ LU PT RO SK UA CYMT
specifically child-friendly designed website to provide online information about the justice system
children are treated in an appropriate manner which takes into account their specific needs and rights
evaluation of such treatment is covered by court surveys addressed to court users
training for judges on child-friendly and child-rights based communication with children
children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings have the right to legal aid
measures are in place to provide for a specific treatment of children who are deprived of liberty
16
Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1218-p of Sept. 30, 2020 “On Approving the National
Strategy for Addressing the Issues with Non-Performance of Court Decision Where the Debtor is a State Authority
or a State Enterprise, Institution, or Organization for the Period of Up to 2022” // Available at: https://zakon.rada.
gov.ua/laws/show/1218-2020-%D1%80#Text.

32
According to international standards, in order to provide access to justice, specific
procedures adapted to a child’s needs should be implemented, which are designed to create
the most comfortable conditions for children in the courtroom and during the trial. Ukraine
has ratified17
most of the international documents related to children’s rights protection,
and the national legislation contains provisions aimed at ensuring the rights of a child in
judicial proceedings: a special procedure for hearing and questioning, a guaranteed right
to free secondary legal aid, and procedural activity of the court in order to protect the
interests of a child (initiative in collecting evidence).
In 2021, the National Police of Ukraine, in partnership with the Interdepartmental
Coordination Council for Juvenile Justice, developed methodological recommendations for
the organization of work with children using the “Green Room’ method18
for investigators
and juvenile police officers19
. Also, as part of civic initiatives to improve the qualifications of
judges when working with children, guidelines for judges on the peculiarities of interviewing
a minor victim or witness of a crime were developed20
. Finally, in 2022, the National School
of Judges developed methodological recommendations for judges on organization of work
with children using the “Green Room” method21
.
According to the results of a 2019 study on the state of compliance with child-friendly
justice standards in non-criminal cases by courts and custody authorities22
, courts show a
special approach towards children in court proceedings and increased activism when hearing
cases involving children. At the same time, based on the monitoring results, a number of
17
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of Nov. 20, 1989, European Convention on the Exercise of
Children’s Rights of Jan. 25, 1996, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of
Jan. 25, 1980, Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement, and Cooperation in
Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children of Oct. 19, 1996, Convention on
Contact Concerning Children of May 15, 2003, Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance of June 20,
1956, Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations of Oct.
2, 1973, European Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Concerning Custody of Children
and on Restoration of Custody of Children of May 20, 1980, and European Convention on the Legal Status of
Children Born out of Wedlock of Oct. 15, 1975. In addition, a number of conventions are also being prepared for
ratification, including: Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation
and Sexual Abuse, European Convention on the Adoption of Children (revised), and The Hague Convention on
Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.
18
The “Green Room” is a set of measures that are used during procedural and investigative action to ensure
the protection of the rights and freedoms of a child who is a witness, victim, or in conflict with the law, in order to
conduct interview (interrogation/questioning) of a child while taking into account his/her age and psychological
circumstances and under conditions that minimize and prevent repeated traumatization of a child’s psyche.
Interviews are held using the following “formula”: safe space (most adapted for interaction with a child) + safe
adult (interacting with a child as “equals”) = safe child.
19
Methodological Recommendations for Investigators and Juvenile Police Officers on Organizing the Work
with Children Using a “Green Room” Method // Available at: https://www.unicef.org/ukraine/media/16976/file/
Green%20Room%20Methodology%20for%20Police%20Offciers.pdf.
20
Peculiarities of Interviewing a Minor Victim or Witness of a Crime: Guidelines for Judges // Available at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eSGPS4ZfFzebrNqi2Ac-OUb-3YxVXqyD/view.
21
Methodological Recommendations for Judges on Organizing the Work with Children Using a “Green Room”
Method // Available at: https://www.unicef.org/ukraine/media/16966/file/Green%20Room%20Methodology%20
for%20Judges.%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B6.
22
Child-Friendly Justice Standards and Their Implementation in Ukraine (non-criminal aspects) (2020) //
Available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/e/d/453435.pdf.

33
regulatory and practical problems in this area were identified: chaotic and unsystematized
legislation in terms of protection of children’s rights; lack of requirements for the use of
special rooms adapted for children during trials; premises of most courts unsuitable for
the presence of children; inadequate legislative regulation of the procedure of interviewing
(interrogating) children; lack of regulation of the right to psychological assistance; failure to
establish the minimum age from which a child can be interviewed; lack of prioritization in
the adjudication of cases regarding the interests of children in courts, as well as of reduced
terms of consideration.
The results of the study also showed high demand for training on child-friendly justice
among professionals, while judges that were interviewed noted insufficient level of training
for proper consideration of cases involving children. The training programs developed by
the National School of Judges include some issues of communicating with children and
protection of children’s rights, but the coverage of these issues is superficial and non-
systematized, and there is no separate general training course. However, according to the
School, the peculiarities of justice in cases involving children in criminal proceedings are
the subject of separate trainings for judges23
. Dedicated seminars or lessons on this topic
are also conducted in regional branches of the School.
In analyzing the experience of EU member states, 20 out of 27 countries have special
websites for providing children with the information about the justice system. In Ukraine,
there is no such web platform, just as there are no other resources where a child could
get information regarding the work of the justice system in an accessible form. We found
a page about children’s rights with legislative excerpts that are not adapted for a child only
on the website of the Parliament’s Commissioner for Human Rights24
. Some courts develop
informational materials for children about justice on their own initiative (for example,
“Guidebook to the Court System for School Children”25
) and conduct educational lessons
and tours in the courts. CSOs are also engaged in such educational work. For example, the
Ukrainian Foundation “Welfare of Children” developed a brochure titled, “I Am Going to
Testify in Court” 26
.
Furthermore, there are no regular surveys of users of court services being conducted in
Ukraine that include questions to assess the adaptability of justice to a child’s needs.
23
Child-Friendly Justice Standards and Their Implementation in Ukraine (criminal aspects): Report based
on Monitoring Results of Court Proceedings in Ukraine (2021) // Available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/
documents/f/9/488050.pdf.
24
Parliament Commissioner on Human Rights (Ombudsman) website. Page for Children // Available at:
https://www.ombudsman.gov.ua/uk/storinka-dlya-ditej.
25
Seventh Appellate Administrative Court: Guidebook to the Court System for School Children // Available at:
https://youtu.be/wNKL03-MCAI.
26
I Am Going to Testify in Court: Information for Children and Youth // Available at: https://childfund.org.ua/
Uploads/Files/books_pdf/broshura_svidchity_v_sudi.pdf.

34
Recommendations:
• codify legislation on children’s rights or develop a law on child-friendly justice that
fully embraces the European standards;
• ensure adaptation of court premises to children’s needs;
• create a web portal about justice for children, with content adapted to the needs
of children of different age groups;
• develop and implement training programs on child-friendly justice;
• conduct regular surveys of users of court services on mechanisms that make
justice suitable for a child’s needs (child-friendly justice).
Figure 23 (33*) Specific arrangements for child-friendly proceedings with children involved
as victims or suspects or as accused persons, 2021:
BE BG CZ DE EE ES HR LT LU HU AT RO SK SE IE FR IT PL DK LV NL SI UA EL CY MT FI
children are assisted by a lawyer (always or where necessary)
children are provided with child-friendly information about their rights and the proceedings
children are heard in child-friendly specialised settings and may effectively participate in the hearing
audio-visual recording of questioning of children
Note: the left column reflects the measures taken in relation to child victims, and the right column – child
suspects accused of committing a crime.
The national legislation provides for additional safeguards for children involved in
criminal proceedings, which are mostly in line with international standards. In Ukraine,
positive changes are gradually are occurring in this area: juvenile prevention units have
been created in the police; juvenile investigators, prosecutors, and judges have been
introduced; legislation on the protection of children from domestic violence, bullying,
sexual exploitation, and sexual violence has been improved; the practice of using the “green
room” method for questioning children is becoming increasingly common; the possibility
of remote interrogation of minors using video communication has been introduced; the
institution of probation was introduced; the amount of trainings on child-friendly justice
has been increased; etc.

35
At the same time, there are a number of legislative gaps, as well as practical
problems that prevent the full protection of children’s rights. According to the results of
monitoring of criminal trials in terms of the state of compliance by the courts with the
standards of child-friendly justice, which was conducted in the second half of 202027
,
adherence to the special procedures for children is often pro forma in practice. The
premises of criminal justice authorities are mostly not adapted to the needs of children,
and courts rarely have courtrooms adapted for the participation of children (such
rooms are missing even in the Supreme Court). Criminal proceedings usually utilize
courtrooms with metal or glass barriers for holding of detained defendants (often, there
is no exception for children).
Although the legislation provides for specialization of investigators, prosecutors, and
judges for criminal proceedings in cases involving children, in practice the implementation
of this specialization is incomplete. In particular, judges who hear criminal cases against
minors are not relieved from other cases. Such judges are elected by the assembly of
judges of the respective court, and the law does not even require any prior mandatory
special training.
Furthermore, there is no uniform approach regarding the questioning child participants
with different procedural status (suspect, defendant, victim, witness). Existing procedures
for questioning/interrogating a child do not contribute to reducing the number of a child’s
interactions with justice, especially when the child is a victim or witness of a crime. The law
also does not impose an obligation on the investigative bodies to provide a lawyer for a
child victim or witness of a crime, although this category of persons has a guaranteed right
to free secondary legal aid.
There are also obstacles to accessing the free legal aid for minors, since they can
exercise this right only through their legal representative. The quality of such aid is not
always adequate, because there are no requirements regarding the availability of special
training for a lawyer who is involved in representing a child’s interests.
27
Child-Friendly Justice Standards and Their Implementation in Ukraine (criminal aspects): Report based
on Monitoring Results of Court Proceedings in Ukraine (2021) // Available at: https://www.osce.org/files/f/
documents/f/9/488050.pdf.

36
Recommendations:
• expand the specialization of investigators, prosecutors, and judges in the area of
children’s rights (juvenile investigator, prosecutor, and judge);
• introduce the specialization of defense attorneys who represent the interests of
children in criminal cases, as well as strengthen control over the quality of free legal aid
provided by attorneys and their duties to protect minors who are in contact or in conflict
with the law;
• introduce systemic trainings of child interrogators, investigators, prosecutors,
attorneys, judges, psychologists, and probation service workers;
• ensure a unified approach to questioning of children, regardless of their status in
criminal proceedings, in particular using the “Green Room” method;
• create comfortable conditions for hearing of cases involving children and their
stay in appropriate premises.
2.2. Resources
financial resources
Figure 24 (34*) General government total expenditure on law courts in EUR per inhabitant,
2012, 2018-2020:
0
50
100
150
200
250
LU DE IE NL SE AT SI BE FI IT ES DKMT FR PL LV PT CZ EE BG HR EL HU SK RO LT CY UA
2012 2018 2019 2020

37
Figure 25 (35*) General government total expenditure on law courts as a percentage of
GDP, 2012, 2018-2020:
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
BG PL HRLV SI HUROUA DE EL ES PT MT IT CZ SK EE NL AT LT SE BE FR LU FI IE DKCY
2012 2018 2019 2020
In 2020, the total budgetary expenditures for the court system were more than UAH 18
billion (almost EUR 530 million). Only EUR 13 was spent on the court system per resident,
which is more than seven times below the European average (92 euros). At the same time,
the share of expenditures as a percentage of the gross domestic product in Ukraine, on the
contrary, is one of the highest among the EU states and is 0.42%.
In recent years, the problem of court financing in Ukraine has become more acute.
According to the State Judicial Administration, the state budget for 2021 covered the needs
of the judicial system in terms of financial resources at only 42.5% (in 2017 – 79.1%, in
2018 – 77.9%, in 2019 – 72.4%, in 2020 – 64.9%)28
. At the same time, income from court fees
covers only one-fifth of the budget allocations for the courts of first and appellate instances.
Currently, more than 90% of the budget expenditures on the courts are salary costs (due
to the excessively high salaries of judges) and only 2% are development expenditures. It is
obvious that in such conditions, there сan be no talk of the judicial system’s modernization
(new premises, technical equipment, digitalization of procedures, etc.). At the same time,
the audit of the State Judicial Administration conducted in 2021 revealed inefficient use of
funds in the multimillion-dollar range29
.
Recommendation:
improve the mechanism of court financing by introducing transparent mechanisms for
the development of budget requests and allocation of funds, as well as control over
the effectiveness of completed expenses.
28
Report on the Activities of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine for 2021 // Available at: https://dsa.
29
Results of the State Financial Audit of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine // Available at: https://
dasu.gov.ua/ua/news/3872.

38
human resources
Figure 26 (36*) Number of judges, 2012, 2018-2020 (per 100 000 inhabitants):
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
SI HR LU EL BG LV AT HU CZ LT PL DE RO SK FI PT EE NL CY BE UA IT SE ES FR MTDK IE
2012 2018 2019 2020
In 2020, 5,199 judicial positions were filled in Ukraine. There were slightly more than 12
working judges per 100,000 residents (17 judges, if calculated based on the approved staff
number of judges). This is one of the lowest indicators among the EU countries and almost
twice below the European average, which is 22 judges per 100,000 residents.
There are no doubts that the number of judges directly affects the indicators of the
administration of justice, in particular, the speed of resolving the cases. At the same time, in
our opinion, a major increase in the number of judges in Ukraine is not the optimal way for
improving the judicial system. As noted in the explanations for Figure 25 (35*), the expenses
for the judicial system as a percentage of the gross domestic product in Ukraine are one
of the highest among the EU countries. In case of a significant increase in the number of
judges, the amount of such expenditures will increase accordingly, as judges will need to be
paid salaries and receive support staff, premises, and technical means. At the same time,
in recent years, the state could not even meet the basic needs of court financing with the
existing number of judges. This is why the development of mechanisms for alternative and
pre-trial dispute resolution, which are cheaper and will be able to reduce the burden on the
judicial system – and therefore the need for judges – looks promising.

39
Figure 27 (37*) Proportion of female professional Supreme Court judges 2019-2021:
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ROBG LV HU FR SK LU SI UA NL AT LT DE IT BE HR PT EL SE CY FI EE IE DK PL MT ES CZ
2019 2020 2021
The Ukrainian legislation ensures equal rights of representatives of each gender in the
process of selection and appointment of judges. According to CEPEJ, Ukraine is included in
the group of countries with an equal gender ratio in all court tiers in terms of the number
of judges, but with a lower representation of women among the heads of courts, especially
in appellate courts.30
Regarding the gender balance in the Supreme Court, as in most EU
countries, the number of women in the judicial positions on the Supreme Court of Ukraine
is less than 50% of the total number of judges of this court.
Figure 28 (38*) Number of lawyers, 2012, 2018-2020 (per 100 000 inhabitants):
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
LU
CY
EL
IT
MT
PT
ES
IE
BG
DE
BE
PL
HU
RO
HR
DK
SK
CZ
UA
FR
NL
SI
EE
LT
AT
FI
LV
SE
2012 2018 2019 2020
30
CEPEJ – Gender equality // Available at: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/cepej/viz/CEPEJ-
Genderequalityv2020_1_0EN/GenderEquality.

40
In Ukraine, a person who has completed a university degree in law, has command of
the state language, and has at least two years of work experience in the field of law can
become a lawyer. To do this, one needs to pass a qualification exam and undergo a six-
month internship with a lawyer who has at least five years of experience as a lawyer. The
gradual introduction of the lawyers’ monopoly on representation in court since 2016 has
led to a rapid increase in the number of lawyers (in 2012, there were slightly more than 27
lawyers per 100,000 residents, while eight years later, this ratio has increased by almost
four times to 106 lawyers). However, this is still below the EU countries average, which is
more than 190 lawyers per 100,000 residents.
training
Figure 29 (39*) Availability of training in communication for judges, 2021:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
CZ DE FR AT PT BG IT ES BE PL NL EL HR FI UA DK EE IE MT LV RO LT LU SK CY SI SE
on the use of social media and/or communication with the media
on awareness raising and dealing with disinformation campaigns in new media (social media)
on communication with victims of domestic violence
on communication with victims of gender based violence
on communication with asylum seekers
on communication with visually or hearing impaired persons
on communication with LGBTIQ people
communication with persons of different cultural, religious, ethnic or linguistic background
Note: 1 point was given for the availability of initial training (for the candidates for judicial position) and 1 point
for the availability of continuous training (maximum of 2 points for each type of training). Maximum possible
score is 16 points.
The National School of Judges of Ukraine is responsible for training the candidates
for the position of a judge and continuing education of judges. Special attention in
the process of training is devoted to the communication aspect of a judge’s activity. In
particular, a special online course was developed in this topic. Trainings on the interaction
with journalists and mass media and with persons with disabilities are also conducted, and
issues of communication with victims of domestic violence, refugees, and foreigners are
covered as part of thematic trainings on the hearing of relevant categories of disputes.
As can be seen from the figure, communications trainings for judges in Ukraine cover
essentially the same topics as in the EU countries. At the same time, as evident from the
response by the National School of Judges of Ukraine31
, in the process of training of new
judges in 2021, insufficient attention was paid to communications aspects. Considering
31
National School of Judges of Ukraine Letter from July 14, 2022 No. 08-05/491.

41
the active development of social networks and media, special attention in the training
process should be paid to the use of these media tools by the judges, as well as to issues of
countering disinformation campaigns about judges in these networks.
2.3. Assessment tools
Figure 30 (40*) Topic of surveys conducted among court users or legal professionals, 2019:
BG LT UA LV PT DK HU SI SE FR RO ES PL
accessibility of the court service the conduct of the hearing
needs and satisfaction of non-native speakers general level of trust in the justice system
customer service of the court the judgment/decision of the court
needs and satisfaction of visually/hearing impaired awareness of rights
other
Sociological studies and surveys on the functioning of the judicial system are regularly
conducted both at the national (in particular, the survey of court users – trial participants
exiting the court premises32
), as well as regional33
and local (individual court34
) levels in
Ukraine. In 2020, the topics of such surveys covered all of the issues specified in the indicator,
except those relating to assessing the level of meeting the needs and satisfaction of non-
native speakers in court. Among the questions posed to the respondents were: geographical
accessibility of the court; comfortable waiting conditions in court premises; timeliness of
hearing the case; attitude and politeness of court employees (both court staff and judges
themselves) and prosecutors; сlarity of a judge’s language; clarity of a court’s decision;
timeframes for judgement; and financial accessibility of court costs (except attorney’s fees).
Furthermore, the surveys studied the following issues: the level of citizens’ trust in courts
32
Survey of the Participants of Court Hearings on Exit from Courts, conducted by the Razumkov Center
Sociological Service between Oct. 21-28, 2020 // Available at: https://rm.coe.int/annex-2-survey-on-exit-from-
courts/1680a0c2b1.
33
Assessment of the Citizen Satisfaction Level with the Quality of Certain Aspects of Court Functioning in Kharkiv
Oblast (2019) // Available at: https://ldn.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/USAID_LDN_Courts-Evaluation_
Report_Kharkiv_2019.pdf; Assessment of the Citizen Satisfaction Level with the Quality of Certain Aspects of
Court Functioning in Poltava Oblast (2019) // Available at: https://ldn.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/
USAID_LDN_Courts-Evaluation_Report_Poltava_2019.pdf; Assessment of the Citizen Satisfaction Level with the
Quality of Certain Aspects of Court Functioning in Chernivtsi Oblast (2019) // Available at: https://ldn.org.ua/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/USAID_LDN_Courts-Evaluation_Report_Chernivtsi_2019.pdf.
34
Assessment of the work of Luhansk District Administrative Court. Analytical Report (2020) // Available at:
https://adm.lg.court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/new_folder_for_uploads/sud1270/ocinuvannya2020.docx

42
of various levels35
; timeliness of court proceedings (compliance with reasonable terms);
independence and impartiality of the court when considering the case; and timeliness of
enforcement of court decisions36
.
Also, a survey of professional lawyers who participate in court proceedings, but are
not judges, was conducted in 2019 and 2021 on the following issues: proper justification
and clarity of court decisions; compliance with reasonable terms of court proceedings;
timeliness of enforcement of court decisions; independence and impartiality of judges in
hearing the case; and presence of bribery in court37
.
Compared to the EU countries, Ukraine’s result is very good, as no surveys of court
users were conducted in 15 countries at all in 2020, while half of remaining countries only
had surveys that covered a little more than half (or less) of the topics mentioned in the
indicator. It should be noted that Ukraine’s result was largely achieved due to the efforts of
non-governmental institutions, since the vast majority of surveys on the functioning of the
justice system are conducted on their initiative and at their expense.
Recommendation:
introduce regular (annual) surveys of court services users regarding the quality
of functioning of the justice system, to be conducted at both the national and local
(individual court) levels.
35
Citizens’ Assessment of the Work of Government, the Level of Trust in Social Institutions and Politicians,
and Electoral Tendencies of Citizens (2020) // Available at: https://razumkov.org.ua/napriamky/sotsiologichni-
doslidzhennia/otsinka-gromadianamy-diialnosti-vlady-riven-doviry-do-sotsialnykh-instytutiv-ta-politykiv-
elektoralni-oriientatsii-gromadian-liutyi-2020r.
36
Trust Barometer in Court: Report on the Results of the First Phase of Online Survey Using the CAWI Method
(2020) // Available: https://newjustice.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Public_Trust_Barometer_Report_1st_
Stage_2020_UKR.pdf.
37
Results of the National Surveys of the Court Employees, Support Staff, and Jurors in 2019 // Available at:
https://newjustice.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NJ_2019_Surveys_Results_July2019_UKR.pdf; Survey of
Professional Lawyer Who Participate in Court Proceedings but Are not Judges or Court Support Staff Regarding
Trust in the Judiciary, Judicial Independence and Accountability, Corruption Perceptions, and Readiness to Report
on Corruption Incidents (April 2021) // Available at: https://newjustice.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021_
Survey_LegalProfessionals_Report_UKR-1.pdf.

43
2.4. Digitalization
Figure 31 (41*) Availability of online information about the judicial system for the general
public, 2021:
BG DE LV ES NL IE LT PL SE FI FR SI DK EE IT AT SK MT UA BE HU PT CZ LU RO HR
education on legal rights to the general public through online tools
smartphone readable websites related to access to justice
website with links to all online forms needed to start a judicial proceeding or be a party in a judicial proceeding
websites with contact forms or emails for inquiries regarding starting a judicial proceeding or being a party in a judicial proceeding
procedural righs of the citizens: websites with clearly visible and understandable information
legal needs: websites with contact details of other organizations outside of the existing legal aid system
court fees: websites with clearly visible and understandable information about court fees and eligibility of their reduction
legal aid: information on access on websites with clearly visible and understandable information
legal aid: interactive online simulation to assess eligibility
compensation for victims: websites with clearly visible and understandable information how to access existing schemes
non-native speakers: websites providing online information about the judicial system
Online access to information about the judicial system is provided at a sufficiently high
level in Ukraine. A number of web services function for this purpose:
• the official web portal “Judicial Power of Ukraine” 38
, which contains information about
the system of courts in Ukraine, judicial self-governance bodies, status of cases,
scheduled broadcasts of court sessions, a module for calculating court fees for
applying to court, justice news, etc. The portal also contains explanations on how to
apply to court, appeal a court decision, and get free legal aid, as well as links to other
registers and systems that may be useful for court services users (such as the Unified
State Register of Court Decisions, the Unified Register of Attorneys of Ukraine, the
“E-Court” subsystem, etc.). In essence, the portal is a key resource that provides
centralized access to information about the judicial system. Among the portal’s
shortcomings are the lack of a mobile version, an insufficient number of explanations
for citizens on the most common questions regarding court activities, as well as the
outdated nature of some information posted on it. For example, the information
booklet on how to appeal a court decision in a civil case39
was last updated in August
2014, although the procedural legislation in Ukraine was significantly amended at the
end of 2017;
• the Unified State Register of Court Decisions40
, which provides general, free, 24-hours
access to court decisions (both interim and on the merits of the case) adopted by the
Ukrainian courts (regardless of the tier and type of court proceedings);
38
Available at: https://court.gov.ua/.
39
How to Appeal a Judgment in a Civil Case? // Available at: https://court.gov.ua/userfiles/05_web.pdf.
40
Available at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/.

44
• E-Court41
, thanks to which a person can submit procedural documents to the court,
calculate and pay the court fee, review materials of his/her case, and receive court
decisions. This resource also contains templates of procedural documents for
different categories of cases and types of proceedings;
• official websites of the courts, which contain information about the court (list of
judges, contact info), news, list of cases assigned for hearing, results of automated
assignment of cases to judges, templates of procedural documents for applying
to a court, module for calculating and paying court fees, information booklets and
explanations for users of court services, etc.
Furthermore, a large set of data from judicial self-governance bodies and individual
courts is published in an open data format on a special web portal42
.
Regarding access to legal aid, the Legal Aid Coordination Center created information
platform for legal advice “WikiLegalAid”43
, which contains consultations on the most
common issues. There are also mobile applications “Free legal aid” (where, among other, a
person can determine whether he/she has the right to free secondary legal aid) and “Your
right”. It is also possible to seek legal advice online (via messengers, website, or by phone).
Thus, in Ukraine a person can get almost all necessary information without leaving
home – get acquainted with legal consultations on the most common issues, calculate
and pay the court fees by filling out the form to apply to court, get information about the
assignment of his/her case to a specific judge, the status of the case, as well as review a
coupe of the court decisions.
At the same time, there are significant problems in providing online access to information
for persons who do not speak the state language, since almost no court has an English-
language version of the site. Furthermore, as shown by research, many EU countries have
developed online educational programs for public about their rights. Unfortunately, there
are no such resources in Ukraine yet, and civic education of citizens is mainly carried out
by civic organizations (although to increase the level of public awareness on court activities
some courts implement projects to increase the level of public awareness on the work of
courts on their own initiative44
).
41
Available at: https://id.court.gov.ua/.
42
Open Data Portal // Available at: https://data.gov.ua/.
43
Available at: https://wiki.legalaid.gov.ua.
44
For example, Zarichny District Court in the city of Sumy has introduced a project “We’re Waiting for You in
Court”, as part of which important legislative issues are discussed with citizens. Kherson Circuit Administrative
Court has implemented a project “#Accessible_About_Court”. For more details on public awareness projects
implemented by courts, see the Center of Policy and Legal Reform study on “Service-Oriented Courts: 5 Steps
Towards People” // Available at: http://innovation.cplr.tilda.ws/.

45
Recommendations:
• conduct an audit of the web portal “Judicial Power of Ukraine” on the presence of
irrelevant and outdated information, based on the results of which update the information
content of the portal, primarily in the section where information for citizens is posted.
Develop a mobile version of the portal;
• develop an English-language version of the web-portal “Judicial Power of Ukraine”
to post the main information about the activities of the judicial system of Ukraine;
• develop an online course on the basics of functioning of the judicial system of
Ukraine and the citizens’ rights.
digital ready rules
Figure 32 (42*) Procedural rules allowing digital technology in courts in civil/commercial
administrative and criminal cases, 2021:
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
CZ EE ES SK SE UA DE LT AT NL LV SI PT HU MT PL FI HR IT DK BE IE RO BG FR LU CY EL
admissibility of evidence filed in a digital format only
language interpretation possible while using distance communication technology
witnesses can be heard by distance communication technology
oral part of the procedure can be conducted entirely via distance communication technology
experts can be heard by distance communication technology
parties/defendants/victims can be heard by distance communication technology
Note: for each state, three columns reflect the regulation by procedural legislation of the use of relevant digital
technologies in the following types of cases (from left to right): 1) civil/commercial cases; 2) administrative cases;
3) criminal cases. The maximum number of points is 12 (2 points if the corresponding option is available in all
categories of disputes of the corresponding type of case, 1 point if it is available in some categories).
The procedural legislation in Ukraine provides for broad opportunities for the use of
digital technologies during the administration of justice. Case participants (not only the
parties, but also witnesses, experts, translators, specialists) in all categories of disputes can
participate in a court hearing via a video conference mode. Previously, such participation
was possible only from the premises of another court, but since April 2020, parties in non-
criminal cases have been allowed to participate in hearings online using their own technical
means. Thus, to participate in a hearing, a party does not even need to leave the house/
office. Witnesses, experts, and translators can participate in a trial via video conference

46
only from the premises of another court. Procedural amendments of 2017 also regulated
the use of electronic evidence in civil, commercial, and administrative cases.
Based on the figure’s data, it can be stated that the Ukrainian procedural legislation in
the context of the use of digital technologies in the administration of justice is one of the
most progressive among the EU member states.
use of digital tools
Figure 33 (43*) Use of digital technology by courts and prosecution services, 2021:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
EE AT DE ES PT SE LU HU SI LV DK IT LT NL FI PL RO SK HR FR UA IE EL MT BE CY BG CZ
use of distributed ledger technologies (blockchain)
use of artificial intelligence applications in core activities
electronic case allocation, with automatic distribution based on objective criteria
use of distance communication technology, particularly for videoconferencing
staff can work securely remotely
judges/prosecutors can work securely remotely
use of an electronic Case Management System
Note. Left column reflects the use of digital technologies by the courts, and right column shows the use of digital
technologies by the procuracy.
For a long time, digital technologies – notably, the electronic document management
systems, which provides for the possibility of sending/receiving documents in electronic
format (while the paper document management still remains the main one), remote
communication technologies (for conducting video conferences both with other courts and
with detention institutions, as well as directly with participants in court proceedings) have
been used in Ukrainian courts. Cases that come before the court are subject to automated
assignment to judges, interference into which is punishable criminally. At the same time,
unlike most EU countries, Ukraine does not have technologies that can ensure secure
remote work of judges and court staff.
The development of the Unified Court Information and Telecommunication System
(UCITS) has been ongoing since 2017, which should become the next step in the digitalization
of justice, providing both electronic document circulation in courts and storage of procedural
documents, exchange of documents and information in electronic form, automatization of
court work, assignment of cases to judges, audio and video recording of trials (including their
broadcast on the Internet), conducting video conferences, functioning of unified contact

47
center for managing applications, and other functions. Currently, only select modules of
UCITS are officially launched (in particular, the subsystems “E-court”, “E-cabinet”, and video
conferencing), and therefore an automated document management system is also used to
perform certain functions.
As for the prosecutor’s office, the situation is somewhat different. Although there is an
internal system of electronic workflow within the prosecutor’s office, it actually consists in
duplicating all documents in an electronic format (i.e., the existence of this system does not
exempt prosecutors from paper-based workflow). There is also no system of automated
electronic assignment of criminal proceedings among prosecutors, and therefore the
assignment is carried out manually by heads of departments. In contrast to courts, due to
the availability of protected electronic access keys for prosecutors, the possibility of secure
remote work (for both prosecutors and support staff) with criminal proceedings materials
is ensured.
There are no developments in the area of artificial intelligence (AI) programs and
blockchain technologies for use in either courts or prosecutors’ core activities. For
example, in Austria, AI is used to anonymize court documents, analyze incoming
correspondence (receiving metadata, determining the type of document, providing
suggestions for describing the document and its name, “routing” the document), and
structuring information to facilitate its further development (including extracting certain
information from a document) 45
.
Recommendations:
• implement technologies that will ensure secure remote work of judges and court
staff;
• develop a concept of digitalization of the judiciary, providing for the implementation
of artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies in current activities.
45
G.Stawa Artificial Intelligence. How is Austria approaching AI integration into judicial policies // Available at:
https://rm.coe.int/how-is-austria-approaching-ai-integration-into-judicial-policies-/16808e4d81.

48
Figure 34 (44*) Courts: electronic communication tools, 2021:
0
1
2
3
4
5
DK DE EE ES LV LT LU HU NL AT RO SI SK SE IT PL FI BE FR HR CZ IE CY EL MT BG UA
availability of secure electronic communication between courts for proceedings
availability of secure electronic communication between courts and lawyers for proceedings
availability of secure electronic communication between courts and detention facilities
availability of secure electronic communication between courts and notaries
availability of secure electronic communication between courts and bailiffs/judicial officers
Figure 35 (45*) Prosecution service: electronic communication tools, 2021:
0
1
2
3
4
5
DK DE EE ES LU HU NL AT PT FI IT IE LT SE RO SK BE CZ FR MT SI HR CY PL LV UA
availability of secure electronic communication within the prosecution service
availability of secure communication between the prosecution service and courts
availability of secure electronic communication between the prosecution service and investigating authorities
availability of secure electronic communication between the prosecution service and detention facilities
availability of secure electronic communication between the prosecution service and defence lawyers
In our opinion, there are no reliably protected digital communication tools within
the justice system in Ukraine. There are no separate secure lines of communication, and
paper-based workflow is still the main form of communication. A certain level of security is
provided by the UCITS module, which is responsible for forwarding procedural documents
and court decisions between the court and the trial participants.
The security of programs used for conducting video conferencing is dubious. The
TrueConf system that was developed in Russia is used for video conferences among courts
and between courts and temporary detention facilities, and the video conferencing systems

49
used for conducting online court hearings (EasyCon, Skype, Zoom) have not undergone the
state certification procedure46
.
As for prosecutor’s offices, the exchange of physical copies of documents is the main
form of communication between prosecutors and pretrial detention centers, pre-trial
investigation bodies, and courts. That is, electronic communication tools are practically
not used. At the same time, each prosecutor has a special e-mail with the domain of the
prosecutor’s, that provides some protection for electronic communication within the
prosecutor’s office or with an attorney (which is a rather uncommon phenomenon).
Thus, compared to the EU member states, Ukraine has a catastrophic situation when it
comes to security of electronic communication tools used by the justice system.
Recommendation:
develop a system of protected electronic communication tools for interaction between
the justice system individuals.
online access to courts
Figure 36 (46*) Digital solutions to initiate and follow proceedings in civil/commercial and
administrative cases, 2021:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
EE LV LT IT DE SK HU ES HR AT PT SE UA CYMT PL SI FI CZ IE NL RO FR BE EL DK BG LU
possibility of online payment of court fees
availability of online information about the court fees
official court documents can be served electronically on businesses (when procedure is not initiated by the business)
official court documents can be served electronically on citizens (when procedure is not initiated by the citizen)
possibility for clients to access the electronic file of their closed cases
possibility for clients to access the electronic file of their ongoing cases
availability of electronic acknowledgment of receipt proving submission of documents with the court
possibility to file an application for legal aid online
possibility to initiate proceedings / file a claim online
Note: For each state, the two colums represent the digital solutions to initiate and participate proceedings in
the following types of cases (from left to right): 1) civil/commercial cases; 2) administrative cases. Maximum
possible score is 9 points. For each criterion, 1 point was given if the possibility exists in all civil/commercial and
administrative cases, respectively, and 0.5 point was awarded when the possibility exists only in some categories
of cases.
46
I. Sherstiuk, N. Kovalko. Comparative Analysis of the Video-Conferencing Systems (updated version) // Available
at: https://www.pravojustice.eu/storage/app/uploads/public/5ee/391/564/5ee3915648c47196437209.pdf.

50
Digital solutions are widely implemented in court activities in Ukraine. To receive a
decision in a case, a person basically does not need to leave their home47
, since with an
electronic digital signature, one can apply to the court and calculate and pay the court fee
online through the “E-Cabinet” subsystem, which is a part of UCITS. Through this subsystem,
it is possible to submit procedural documents in a case, receive documents submitted by
other participants or court decisions, as well as review case materials. Furthermore, it is
possible to participate in the hearing using one’s own technical means.
Thus, all digital solutions indicated in the figure are already being implemented in the
Ukrainian justice system. However, due to insufficient funding of the courts, in practice
such implementation varies. In particular, some courts are not sufficiently equipped with
technical means (for example, scanners or video conferencing systems) and staff. Given
this fact, a person is often facing difficulties with reviewing case materials, since they are
not fully scanned, whereas for cases that were heard several years ago, one will not be able
to access the materials online at all.
Figure 37 (47*) Digital solutions to conduct and follow court proceedings in criminal cases,
2021:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
EE HU AT SK DE LV FI ES LT CZ PT RO UA FR PL HR CY BE LU SE BG IE IT DK SI
defendants can access their ongoing case electronically
victims can access their ongoing case electronically
victims can submit written statements online (including initial applications)
defendants can communicate confidentially with their lawyers during remote hearings
defendants can submit written statements online, including legal-aid application
defendants in detention can use ICT facilities to prepare for hearings
Note: Maximum possible score is 6 points. For each criterion, 1 point was given if the possibility of corresponding
digital solution exists in all criminal cases, and 0.5 point as awarded if the possibility exists only in some types
of cases.
47
If the opposing party does not have a registered e-cabinet, there is a general rule that the person is required
to send a copy of procedural documents being submitted to a court by mail.

51
Similarly to civil, commercial, and administrative cases, the UCITS system provides broad
opportunities for the use of digital solutions in criminal cases, in particular, the opportunity
for the victim or the accused to submit procedural documents to the court or review the
materials of their case. At the same time, there are similar problems for criminal cases as
for civil cases – namely, not all case materials are scanned, and therefore remote access to
all materials is often not guaranteed.
At the same time, compared to the EU states, it is possible to highlight shortcomings
in the digitalization of the Ukrainian criminal justice system. In particular, according to the
State Judicial Administration, the video conferencing system does not have the technical
ability to simultaneously ensure a person’s participation in the hearing while being outside
the court premises (remotely) and confidential communication between the defendant and
the attorney during a remote hearing48
. Thus, if the defendant participates in a hearing
from the pre-trial detention center while the defense attorney is in the courtroom, the
attorney cannot promptly and confidentially consult with the defendant during the hearing
trial, which significantly narrows the possibilities and quality of defense.
Similarly, persons in custody have virtually no access to information technologies while
preparing for hearings, which worsens their access to justice and leads them to rely solely
on their attorney to prepare their defense. At the same time, in most EU countries, such
access is available for suspects/defendants.
Recommendations:
• developsoftwarethatwouldensurethepossibilityofconfidentialcommunication
between the suspect/defendant and the defense attorney during a remote hearing;
• provide the persons in custody with the opportunity to use information and
communication technologies to prepare for hearing.
48
State Judicial Administration of Ukraine Response from July 19, 2022 No. inf/С273-22-308/22.

52
access to judgements
Figure 38 (48*) Online access to published judgments by the general public, 2021
(civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases, all instances):
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
BG EE LT HU SK UA ES CY LVMTDE IT LU SI CZ RO IE FI AT DKHR NL PT BE PL FR SE EL
1st instance courts (civil, commercial and admin) 1st instance criminal courts
2nd instance (civil, commercial and admin) 2nd instance criminal courts
highest instance courts highest instance criminal courts
Figure 39 (49*) Arrangements for producing machine-readable judicial decisions, 2021
(civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases, all instances):
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
DE LV BG EE ES NL SK UA AT LT PL CY HU FI CZ IT LU IE MT RO SI FR HR PT BE SE DK EL
judgments and their associated metadata are downloadable free of charge in the form of a database or by other automated means
anonymisation/pseudonymisation is assisted by an algorithm
rules are in place to determine whether or not personal data are revealed in online published judgments
judgments have associated information (“metadata”) on citations and references to national and/or EU law or case law
judgments have associated information (“metadata”) on keywords, date of the decision, etc.
judgments are assigned a European Case Law Identifier (ECLI)
judgments are modelled according to a standard which would enable their machine readability
website is accessible to the general public free of charge
Column2
Note: For each state, three columns reflect implemented arrangements for the following categories of cases
(from left to right): 1) civil/commercial cases; 2) administrative cases; 3) criminal cases. Maximum possible score
is 24 points. For each of the three instances, 1 point is given if all judicial decisions are covered.

53
According to the Law of Ukraine “On Access to Court Decisions”, judgements are open
and must be made public in electronic format no later than the next day after they were
issued and signed. Online access to judgements is provided through the Unified State
Register of Court Decisions49
, access to which is open and free of charge. All judgements and
dissenting opinions of judges are entered into the register (currently, the register contains
more than 100 million judgements and dissenting opinions). Moreover, both judgements
on the merits of the case (i.e., decisions based on the results of case consideration), and
interim court decisions (for example, resolution on opening proceedings, securing a claim,
scheduling a hearing) are published in the register.
The format for maintaining the Unified State Register of Court Decisions allows for use
of software for processing published decisions. Registry data is also published in an open
data format. Using the registry data, several services were developed in Ukraine to improve
the work with caselaw50
. For example, the “Court in Your Hand” platform provides advanced
capabilities for searching the judgements (for example, using the legislation and practice
of the European Court of Human Rights as a refining search filter). Furthermore, within
this platform the “WINCOURT” service is implemented, which allows to upload a complaint,
a response to a complaint, an appellate complaint, or a judgement and to get a forecast
regarding the case outcome, statistics on similar judgements, or recommendations on
legislation51
.
As evidenced by Figure 38 (48*), only five EU member states provide online public
access to court decisions of all tiers and in all categories of disputes, and according to
Figure 39 (49*), only half of the states actively work on ensuring machine readability of court
decisions. Thus, once again, compared to the EU members, the digitalization and openness
of the Ukrainian justice is at a high level.
49
Unified State Register of Court Decisions // Available at: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/.
50
Legal Sector // Available at: https://diia.data.gov.ua/value/law.
51
“Court in Your Hand” Platform // Available at: https://conp.com.ua/.

54
1. Only the poorest citizens in Ukraine de facto enjoy the right to free legal aid to protect
their interests in court. Even a person who receives the minimum wage does not
have this right. This situation differs from the general trend among the EU countries,
in which a person has the right to free legal aid even if his/her income is significantly
higher than the poverty threshold.
2. The Ukrainian justice is cheap for the case participants, but expensive for the state.
Despite the fact that amount of the court fee for applying to a Ukrainian court is one
of the lowest among the EU countries, it also acts as a restraining factor for applying
to court with minor claims. In combination with the underdeveloped alternative
dispute resolution mechanisms in Ukraine, this situation worsens access to justice.
Furthermore, such cheap cost has another drawback – the state takes care of the
lion’s share of the judicial system’s expenses, while income from court fees was only
20% of total amount of budget allocations for the courts of the first and appellate
instances in 2021.
Compared to the EU countries, Ukraine has one of the highest percentages of the
share of GDP spent on courts (0.42%), although when calculated per capita, the
expenditures on courts are more than seven times below the European average (EUR
13 compared to EUR 92). More than 90% of the funds allocated to the courts are
spent on the salaries of judges and court staff, and only 2% goes to development
expenses.
3. The ratio of the number of judges to the population in Ukraine is almost twice lower
than the European average. In particular, in 2020, there were slightly more than 12
working judges per 100,000 residents in Ukraine (17 judges if calculated based on
the approved number of staff judicial positions), which is one of the lowest indicators
among the EU countries. Similarly, the number of lawyers in Ukraine is significantly
below the European average (only 106 lawyers per 100,000 residents, compared to
the average of 190 lawyers).
4. The Ukrainian legislation permits the use of a number of mechanisms for alternative
dispute resolution (arbitration, arbitration courts, mediation); however, in practice,
the level of public awareness of such mechanisms (and therefore the frequency of
their use) is very low. Despite more than a four-year existence of reconciliation with
the participation of a judge, this rather progressive institution has not become widely
used. In essence, non-governmental organizations are engaged in the development of
alternative dispute resolution methods in Ukraine, and the state’s interest regarding
this subject is minimal.
5. The Ukrainian justice is not completely adapted to the needs of the persons
with disabilities. In particular, the state implements special measures to ensure
unimpeded access to justice for persons with disabilities, but due to the problems of

55
judicial system financing and inconsistent state policy, these measures are not fully
implemented. To a large extent, civic organizations deal with this issue.
6. The establishment of child-friendly justice is also at a relatively early stage. Although
Ukraine has ratified most of the international documents related to the rights of
the child, in practice, the adaptation of justice to the needs of children is ongoing.
The premises of courts and police authorities are mostly not adapted for the stay of
children, and gaps in legal regulations do not allow to reduce the number of contacts
of children with justice. Also, the results of conducted surveys showed that there is a
high demand for training on child-friendly justice among legal professionals.
7. Compared to most of the EU states, sociological surveys and studies regarding the
functioning of the judicial system and the level of satisfaction with judicial services
are regularly conducted in Ukraine at the national, regional, and local levels. However,
such surveys are conducted at the initiative of non-governmental institutions, which
imposes certain limitations on monitoring the dynamics of changes in respondents’
attitudes to certain aspects of justice system functioning.
8. Digitalization of the Ukrainian justice is at a very high level. In essence, a person does
not even have to leave their home to apply to a court, pay the court fee, attend the
hearing,andreceivethedecision.Furthermore,specialresourcesprovideunhindered,
24-hours, free online access to both information on the judicial system’s functioning
and various legal consultations, as well as to court decisions of various instances.
Despite the progressive legislation in this area, in practice, due to the lack of funding,
there are frequent instances where it is impossible to fully use all available tools.
9. The use of blockchain and artificial intelligence technologies, which are already used
in the EU states, by courts in their current activities may be a promising direction for
further digitalization of the Ukrainian justice.
10. At the same time, a catastrophic situation has occurred with the security of electronic
communications tools used by the courts and prosecutor’s offices.

56
SECTION 3.
INDEPENDENCE
3.1. Perceived judicial independence and effectiveness of investment
protection
Note. Ukrainian justice system is not assessed within the framework of Eurobarometer, so we used the data
from national sociological surveys to describe Figures 40 (50*) – 45 (55*).
Figure 40 (50*) How the general public perceives the independence of courts and judges52
.
3%
17%
32%
36%
12%
judges are fully independent
in general, judges are independent, but
possible influence on some
representatives of the judiciary
judges are mostly dependent, but it is
impossible to influence some judges
judges are completely dependent
hard to say
The data of sociological studies conducted in recent years show that the majority
of Ukrainian citizens do not perceive the judicial system as independent. According to
the survey conducted in 2019, more than 67% of citizens consider judges to be mostly
or completely dependent, and only a slightly more than 20% – as mostly or completely
independent. The attitude towards the independence of judges among those who were
directly involved in court proceedings was somewhat better; more than 42% of respondents
noted that judges are mostly independent, and a little less than 45% – that judges are mostly
dependent53
. According to another survey conducted in 2019, only 14% of citizens noted that
the situation with judicial independence had improved over the past three years. Instead,
46% of the surveyed respondents indicated that the situation has not changed, and 20%
noted that judges, on the contrary, have become more dependent54
. In the following years,
52
The chart shows data from the Report Based on the Results of a Study “Citizens’ Attitudes to the Judicial
System” (2020) // Available at: https://rm.coe.int/zvitsud2020/1680a0c2d7.
53
Report Based on the Results of a Study “Citizens’ Attitudes to the Judicial System” (2019) // Available at:
https://rm.coe.int/report-razumkov-final/16809537f0.
54
Judicial Reform in Citizens’ Eyes: What Could Positively Affect the Trust in Courts? (2019) // Available at: https://
rpr.org.ua/news/sudova-reforma-ochyma-hromadyan-scho-mozhe-pozytyvno-vplynuty-na-doviru-do-sudu/.

SECTION 3. INDEPENDENCE
57
the situation also had not changed significantly, since according to a 2021 survey, 75% of
respondents did not agree with the statement that the courts are completely independent
and not influenced by politicians, authorities, and oligarchs55
.
As for the EU states, the situation is a complete opposite. In 17 states, more than 50% of
respondents rate the independence of courts and judges as very good and fairly good (the
highest result is in Finland, at almost 90%), while in 7 more countries, this opinion is shared
by 30% to 50% of respondents, and only in three countries (Slovakia, Poland, Croatia), less
than 30% of those surveyed consider judges to be independent.
Figure 41 (52*) How companies perceive the independence of courts and judges:
the situation with perception of the independence of the judicial system by companies
is not better. According to a survey conducted in 2020, on average, less than 20% of
those surveyed consider the courts to be independent from the authorities, and business
representatives assess the impartiality of the Ukrainian judicial system at 2.69 points out
of 5 possible (where 5 points means that the judicial system is completely impartial). At
the same time, compared to 2016, this indicator has slightly improved (in 2016, it was 2.56
points, in 2017 – 2.5 points, in 2018 – 2.58 points, and in 2019 – 2.55 points)56
.
In general, a negative assessment of the independence of the judicial system by the
public and business representatives correlates with a low level of trust in the courts. In
recent years, courts in Ukraine keep ranking in the lowest positions in terms of trust rating
compared to other state institutions (according to a 2021 survey, almost 75% of citizens
tend to not trust the judicial system)57
.
Figure 42 (51*, 53*) Main reasons among the general public/companies for the
perceived lack of independence: among the reasons that influence the perceived lack
of independence of judges, court users mentioned interference or pressure from the
authorities, politicians, and oligarchs (75%), economic or other specific interests (72%)58
,
corruption, and bribery59
. Overall, 42% of the Ukrainian citizens do not believe in the
possibility of obtaining a fair and legal judgement, and almost 80% believe that the person
with more money or power has a better chance to win in court60
.
55
Survey of the Population of Ukraine Regarding Judicial and Other Branches of Government, Judicial
Independence and Accountability, Corruption Perceptions, and Readiness to Report on Corruption Incidents
(2021) // Available at: https://newjustice.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021_Survey_Population_Report_
UKR.pdf.
56
Court Index: Wave Eight, 2020 // Available at: https://golaw.ua/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/eba-court-
index_ua_2021.pdf.
57
Trust in Social Institutions and Politicians, Electoral Tendences of the Citizens of Ukraine (2021) // Available
at: https://razumkov.org.ua/napriamky/sotsiologichni-doslidzhennia/dovira-do-instytutiv-suspilstva-ta-politykiv-
elektoralni-oriientatsii-gromadian-ukrainy.
58
Survey of the Population of Ukraine Regarding Judicial and Other Branches of Government, Judicial
Independence and Accountability, Corruption Perceptions, and Readiness to Report on Corruption Incidents
(2021) // Available at: https://newjustice.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021_Survey_Population_Report_
UKR.pdf
59
Court Index: Wave Eight, 2020 // Available at: https://golaw.ua/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/eba-court-
index_ua_2021.pdf.
60
80% of Ukrainians Believe Those with More Money or Power Have More Chances to Win in Court // Available

58
Compared to the EU member states, the level of independence of the judiciary in Ukraine
is one of the lowest in Europe, as assessed by the public and business representatives. It
shouldbenotedthatasaresultofaseriesofdecisionsoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights,
Ukraine significantly improved its legislation and procedures aimed at ensuring greater
independence of judges, including through the adoption of constitutional amendments in
2016. At the same time, despite high constitutional safeguards for independence of judges
and fairly favorable legislation, the problem of the lack of judicial independence persists.
The reason for this is informal influences and connections in the judicial system, which have
a corrupt nature. Integrity has not yet become a value that unites all judges in the struggle
for independence. Judicial self-governance bodies, having gained a decisive influence on
the career and disciplinary responsibility of judges, have used this power not so much to
affirm the independence and integrity of the judicial corps, but to strengthen the negative
phenomena that existed in the justice system. Therefore, the relaunch of these bodies,
which started in August 2021, remains an urgent issue.
Figure 43 (54*, 55*) How companies perceive the effectiveness of investment
protection by the law and court and main reasons among companies for their
perceived lack of effectiveness of investment protection: there are no any investors
surveys regarding the quality of the justice system in Ukraine conducted at the state’s
initiative on a regular basis. According to results of surveys conducted by non-governmental
professional organizations, “efficiency” of the judicial system is one of the reasons behind
foreign companies’ fears to invest in Ukraine.
According to the fifth annual survey of foreign investors, which is regularly conducted by
the European Business Association, the Center for Economic Strategy, and Dragon Capital,
distrust for the judicial system led the anti-rating of obstacles to foreign investment in
2020, displacing widespread corruption from the top spot (in previous years (2016-2019),
distrust of courts always ranks second) 61
. On a 10-point scale, respondents rated distrust
for the judicial system as an obstacle to investment at 8.5 points. At the same time, the
relaunch of the court system was viewed by the investors as one of the steps that will have
a positive impact on the investment climate.
Similar results were received in a survey by the American Chamber of Commerce in
Ukraine conducted in 2021. In particular, 56% of respondents recognized that the Ukrainian
courts are the biggest obstacle to doing business (this is the highest indicator out of other
institutions). At the same time, 93% of companies noted that the implementation of real and
effective judicial reform, rule of law, fair justice, and elimination of corruption is the number
one strategic step that the Ukrainian government should undertake to achieve economic
growth, improve business climate, and attract foreign investment62
. Thus, inefficiency of
the Ukrainian judicial system is one of the key obstacles for foreign investments.
at: https://dif.org.ua/article/80-ukraintsiv-vvazhayut-shcho-bilshe-shansiv-vigrati-u-sudi-mae-toy-u-kogo-bilshe-
groshey-chi-vladi.
61
Fifth Annual Survey of Foreign Investors (November 2020) // Available at: https://dragon-capital.com/
content/uploads/2020_ForeignInvestorSurvey_Presentation_ua.pdf.
62
90% of Businesses Forecast Upbeat Financial Health of their Companies at the End of 2021 – New Survey by
the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine and Citi Ukraine // Available at: https://chamber.ua/news/90-

59
By contrast, according to Eurobarometer, business rather highly assess the level of
investment protection by the legislation and courts in the EU states. In 16 states, more
than 50% of surveyed company representatives are confident in the security of their
investments. In 10 other states, the level of confidence is from 30 to 50%. Only in Poland,
less than 30% of investors tend to believe that their investments are effectively protected
by the legislation and courts.
Among the key reasons that affect companies’ perception of ineffectiveness of the
protection of their investments, Eurobarometer outlines the following: 1) unpredictable,
non-transparent administrative practice and difficulties with appealing of administrative acts
in courts; 2) frequent changes in legislation or concerns about the quality of the legislative
process; 3) difficulties in obtaining fair compensation/adequate property protection when
something goes wrong; and 4) difficulties in ensuring the observance of rights in court due
to concerns about the quality, efficiency, or independence of the judicial system.
3.2. Structural independence
Figure 44 (56*) National security checks on judges: authorities involved and timing:
as part of the selection procedure, candidates for the position of a judge who have
successfully passed the selection exam undergo a special vetting procedure. As part of
this vetting, the High Qualification Commission of Judges sends requests for verification
of relevant information to the authorized bodies. The list of bodies to which requests are
sent is determined by the Commission, taking into account the information contained in
the candidates’ personal files. As a rule, such requests are also sent to the Security Service
of Ukraine, which, as a general rule, verifies whether a person has access to state secrets
and military obligation63
. As part of such verification, the Security Service reviews its
available information regarding the candidate and does not conduct any interviews with
the candidate.
Following the appointment to the position of a judge, the Security Service has the right
to review a person only if such a person needs to obtain access to state secrets. In other
cases, the Service does not have the authority to review a judge.
In most EU countries, the national security service does not have the authority to review
judges at all – neither before they are appointed to a position nor in respect of sitting
judges. This is primarily due to the fact that verifications conducted by entities outside of
the judicial system carry the risk of interfering with judicial independence. Only in eight
EU countries is the national security service involved in verification of judicial candidates
(in four countries, this is only possible on the basis of a separate request, and in the other
of-businesses-forecast-upbeat-financial-health-of-their-companies-at-the-end-of-2021-new-survey-by-the-
american-chamber-of-commerce-in-ukraine-and-citi-ukraine/?fbclid=IwAR1N1s0UpjkECKjpVIGyJScRogwZeYk6C
pE_PV2M_Pptjg6uSu-nCnBBm9M.
63
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 171 of Mar. 25, 2015 “On Approving the Procedure for
Conducting Special Vetting of the Persons Applying for Positions of Responsibility or Heightened Responsibility
and Positions of High Corruption Risk, and Amending Certain Resolutions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine”
// Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/171-2015-%D0%BF#Text.

60
four – on a regular basis). Only in Croatia judges undergo regular review by the national
security service. At the same time, in our opinion, the mechanism that exists in Ukraine
does not interfere with judicial independence, given the method and content of review, and
is necessary to guarantee the security of the state.
Figure 45 (57*) Possibility of higher/Supreme Courts to take decisions on the
consistency of case-law of lower courts on their own initiative: in Ukraine, the Supreme
Court ensures uniform application of the legal norms by courts of different specializations.
The exercise of this authority is carried out through several mechanisms. Primarily, the
Supreme Court is a cassation-level court, and its opinions on the application of legislative
provisions, as formulated in the Court’s resolutions, must be considered by other courts
when applying the relevant provisions. The application of such opinions by the courts of
the first and appellate instances will play an important role in case of future cassation
appeals against their judgements. For example, to appeal a court decision using a cassation
procedure, a person must either provide a reasoning that the appellate court applied the
legislative provision without taking into account the opinion of the Supreme Court contained
in its resolution or justify the need to deviate from the Supreme Court’s opinion that was
applied by the appellate court in deciding the case. The law even provides for a special
review mechanism if the Supreme Court wishes to depart from a legal opinion which it has
previously issued.
If a case was not brought before a court in a procedurally authorized manner, the
Supreme Court cannot provide binding guidelines or recommendations regarding its
consideration. The Supreme Court, on its own initiative, can only summarize judicial practice,
publicize its own legal positions, and provide advisory clarifications on the application of
legislation when deciding court cases.
In most of the EU states, the supreme courts do not have the right to provide lower-tier
courts with recommendations or guidelines on deciding the cases on their own initiative.
Only in four countries the supreme courts are empowered to provide general guidelines to
courts on their own initiative, and in another four countries – to provide binding guidelines
for all courts/judges regarding the manner in which the cases must be decided. In our
opinion, the mechanism of ensuring consistency of judicial practice by the Supreme Court
which exists in Ukraine sufficiently ensures the independence of judges in the administration
of justice, making it impossible for the Supreme Court to provide guidelines on its own
initiative regarding the consideration of a specific case.

61
Figure 46 (58*) Safeguards relating to temporary employment of judges/prosecutors as
politicians/ministers/government officials/cabinet members/in other political offices:
BE CZ EL LU MTRO UA BG DK DE EE IE ES FR HR IT CY LV LT HU NL AT PL PT SK SI FI SE
no specific rules in place, but the general ethical norms apply
notification/declaration of the new temporary employment to a specific body by the judge/prosecutor
cooling-off period required before the person can return to their position of a judge/prosecutor
authorisation from a body needed for the judge/prosecutor to leave their position temporarily
Note: the left column reflects the availability of safeguards relating to temporary employment of judges in a
political office, and the right column reflects this for prosecutors.
In Ukraine, a judge/prosecutor must be politically neutral; that is, they cannot belong
to any political party or show allegiance to it, or participate in political actions. Violation
of these requirements results in disciplinary liability. Temporary appointment of judges/
prosecutors to political positions is also not allowed. Such appointment is possible only after
the removal of a judge/prosecutor from the position held. These restrictions are intended
to ensure the impartiality and independence of judges/prosecutors in the performance of
their functions.
At the same time, in most of the EU countries, a judge/prosecutor can temporarily become
employed in a political position and then return to the administration of justice/execution
of prosecutorial functions. Only six EU states do not allow such temporary employment. In
our opinion, such situation negatively affects the impartiality and independence of judges/
prosecutors, since even after being removed from a political office, from an outsider’s point
of view, a judge/prosecutor may be perceived as having retained political connections,
which casts doubts on the impartiality of this person during the administration of justice/
execution of prosecutorial functions.

62
safeguards relating to the functioning of national prosecution services
Figure 47 (59*) Authority reviewing a prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute: accor
ding to the provisions of the criminal procedure legislation, the adopti: according to
the provisions of the criminal procedure legislation, the adoption of a separate decision
on the launch of criminal proceedings is not envisioned in Ukraine. As a general rule, the
investigator, inquirer, or prosecutor immediately, but not later than 24 hours after submitting
a statement about the commission of a criminal offense or after independently discovering
from any source the circumstances that may indicate the commission of a criminal offense,
shall enter relevant information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations and
start an investigation64
. At the same time, if there are procedural grounds (for example, lack
of sufficient evidence to prove a person’s guilt in court and lack of opportunity to obtain it),
a prosecutor may close the criminal proceedings. Such a decision of the prosecutor may be
reversed by a superior prosecutor or by court.
Almost all EU states provide for review of a prosecutor’s decisions not to prosecute. At
the same time, in most countries such oversight is carried out by a superior prosecutor.
Figure 48 (60*) Bodies with power to conduct criminal investigation
According to provisions of criminal procedure legislation, pre-trial investigations in
Ukraine are carried out by the National Police units, the Security Service of Ukraine, the
State Bureau of Investigation (investigation of crimes committed by officials who have
a particularly responsible position, judges, and law enforcement officers, as well as
war crimes, etc.), the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (investigation of high-
ranking corruption cases), and the Economic Security Bureau of Ukraine (investigation of
crimes that encroach on the functioning of the state’s economy (for example, tax and duty
evasion)).
64
Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, Art. 214 // Available at: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-
17#n622.

63
independence of Bars and lawyers
Figure 49 (61*) Independence of Bars and lawyers, 2021:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LU PT BE IE ES HR FR LV FI SK EL NL DK AT HU SI SE DE CZ IT EE LT PL UA RO BG CYMT
guarantees for confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship
independence of the bar from the executive
no supervisory role of the executive
the body giving autorisation for access to the profession is independent
decisions on access to the profession are subject to a judicial review
the body initiating the disciplinary proceedings is independent
the body taking decisions on disciplinary measures is independent
disciplinary measures against lawyers are subject to a judicial review
The 2012 reform of the bar in Ukraine changed the previous Soviet concept, which was
contrary to the European standards – the state stopped controlling the activities of the
lawyers. Instead, the bar authorities were clearly regulated by the Constitution and the new
law, namely: the bar received professional self-governance, the ability to independently
manage access to the profession, to resolve issues of disciplinary liability of lawyers, to
maintain the Unified Register of Lawyers of Ukraine, etc. Furthermore, representatives of
the profession received the right to independently establish professional rules.
According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the bar operates to provide professional
legal assistance to citizens and legal entities. All lawyers of Ukraine must be members
of the National Bar Association of Ukraine. The independence of the bar is guaranteed
by Art. 131-2 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The activity of the bar is also regulated by
the Law of Ukraine “On the Bar and Advocates’ Activities”, which was adopted in 2012. In
accordance with the Law, self-governance of the bar is based on the principles of election,
publicity, binding nature of the decisions of the bar’s self-government bodies for lawyers,
accountability, and the prohibition for the bar’s self-governance bodies to interfere the
professional activities of the lawyers. Only lawyers of Ukraine can participate in the work of
self-governance bodies of the bar and be elected to their membership.
Guarantees of bar activity are set forth the Article 23 of the Law, in particular: any
interference and obstruction of a lawyer’s practice is prohibited; the life, health, honor and
dignity of a lawyer and his/her family members, as well as their property are under the
protection of the state; lawyer confidentiality is protected and interference in a lawyer’s
private communication with the client is prohibited; prohibition on identifying a lawyer with
the client; etc. Also, the law provides for special guarantees during searches: a motion for
a search warrant and other investigative actions against a lawyer can only be submitted by
the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, his/her deputies, and prosecutors of regional level and

64
the cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol; a search warrant decision by the investigating judge must
specify the list of property that is planned to be searched during the investigative action;
a representative of a regional bar council must be present when a lawyer is searched; etc.
Thus, the legislation of Ukraine meets the international standards for the independence
of legal profession and protection of lawyer’s confidentiality. Compared to the EU member
states, Ukraine is at a fairly high level in terms of guaranteeing the independence of the legal
profession at the legislative level. However, in practice, there are problems with ensuring
compliance with the guarantee of confidentiality of lawyer-client relationship which,
in particular, is confirmed by the information from the Committee for the Protection of
Lawyers’ Rights65
. Thus, searches in the offices and residences of lawyers are not infrequent,
and documents or items containing attorney-client privilege are not only examined by
investigators, but can also be seized, as the search warrant decision by the investigating
judge is not required to contain a justification as to why the documents or property that is
planned to be searched do not contain a lawyer’s confidential information. Moreover, there
are cases of when representatives of the bar council are not notified or are notified not in
a timely manner by the law enforcement authorities of the search, or are prevented from
participating in investigative actions.
Furthermore, there are also problems with the bar’s self-governance. The bar has never
actually become an independent, self-governing organization. Led by a narrow circle of
lawyers, the Bar Council remains influential through its control over the qualification and
disciplinary bodies of lawyers and over membership fees paid by all lawyers66
.
65
Report of the Committee to Protect the Rights of Lawyers and Advocate Activity for 2021 // Available at:
https://unba.org.ua/assets/uploads/c80276feb6ac85f7b4f2_file.pdf.
66
Ukraine and the Association Agreement: Monitoring of Implementation in 2014-First Half of 2021 // Available
at: https://ucep.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/zvit_ucep_ukr_final.pdf.

65
1. The data from sociological surveys conducted in recent years prove that the majority
of Ukrainian citizens do not perceive the judicial system as independent. Similar
results were also received from surveys of business representatives, and in 2020,
distrust of the judicial system was mentioned as a key obstacle to foreign investment
by foreign investors. Among the main reasons for this perception are the existence
of political interference and corruption among the judiciary. According to a 2021
sociological survey, almost 80% of citizens believe that the richer or more influential
party will win in court.
2. From the point of view of institutional aspects of ensuring the judiciary’s
independence, the legislation of Ukraine generally meets international standards.
The 2016 constitutional amendments minimized the influence of political bodies on
the activities of the judicial system, giving complete power to the judicial governance
authorities. At the same time, unsuitable legislative mechanisms for the formation
of such bodies in practice have led to the fact that their activities merely preserved
the negative phenomena that existed in the judicial system, which resulted in the
adoption in 2021 of legislative amendments aimed at their complete reboot.

66
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The assessment results showed that, compared to the judicial systems of the EU member
states, the Ukrainian justice system has both weak and strong points. The “strengths’ of the
Ukrainian justice include:
• being cheap for case participants. The amount of the court fees that must be paid
when applying to court is several times below that in many EU states;
• high level of digitalization. One does not even need to leave home to apply to court,
pay the court fee, participate in a hearing, and receive a judgement based on the
results of hearing of the case;
• high level of online availability of information about the judicial system. In Ukraine,
unhindered, free, 24-hours online access is provided both to legal consultations on
the most common issues and to information about the courts’ activities, as well as to
judgements of various court tiers. Furthermore, online broadcasts of individual court
hearings are public available (as a rule, this applies to hearings that have significant
public interest);
Among the “weaknesses” of the Ukrainian justice are the following:
• insufficient level of human and financial resources. In 2020, there were slightly more
than 12 working judges per 100,000 residents in Ukraine, which is one of the lowest
indicators among the EU countries. Furthermore, although the state spent 0.42% of
GDP on courts (one of the highest indicators among the EU countries), it was only
EUR 13 per resident (the lowest indicator among the EU countries). In combination
with the fact that only 2% of court expenses are directed to development, as well as
frequent non-targeted and ineffective use of the limited resources that are allocated,
this impedes the development of the Ukrainian justice system;
• insufficient development of alternative dispute resolution methods. Various
alternative dispute resolution methods provided for by the Ukrainian legislation
(arbitration, arbitration courts, mediation) are rarely used by ordinary citizens in
practice;
• adaptation to the needs of persons with disabilities. Due to insufficient financing
of the judicial system and inconsistent state policy, measures directed at ensuring
barrier-free access to justice have not been fully implemented;
• child-friendliness. Although Ukraine has ratified most of the international documents

67
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
related to the protection of children’s rights, the adaptation of justice to the needs of
children is still at a relatively low level in practice. At the same time, in recent years,
the work on this issue has significantly intensified;
• accessibility for persons who do not speak the state language. The websites of the
vast majority of courts and even the official web portal “Judiciary of Ukraine” do not
have an English-language version;
• low level of trust in courts by citizens, trial participants, businesses, and foreign
investors.
It should be noted that in terms of key indicators, the Ukrainian justice system does
not fall behind the EU members’ systems, and for some indicators (e.g., digitalization or
publicity) it is even among the leaders. Of course, the reform of the Ukrainian judicial
system should begin with the relaunch of the key bodies of judicial self-governance – the
High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine and the High Council of Justice – that
are responsible for the integrity of the judicial corps and the protection of independence of
judges, since the trust in courts depends on the performance of each judge and the ability
of the system to punish those judges whose actions discredit its authority. This reform is
already underway. At the same time, it would be appropriate to start working now on the
implementation of certain thematic and institutional projects that could help improve the
Ukrainian justice, notably:
Thematic projects:
• reviewing the minimum income level that entitles one to obtain free secondary legal
aid, as well as granting the courts with discretionary powers to decide on ensuring
the provision of such aid to a person depending on his/her financial condition and life
circumstances;
• reviewingtheamountofcourtfeesinordertoensureabalancebetweencompensation
of the costs for consideration of the case and effective access to justice;
• conducting informational and educational campaigns among the public and court
visitors regarding alternative dispute resolution methods, the basics of the functioning
of the Ukrainian justice, and citizens’ rights (via an online course format);
• introducing child-friendly justice trainings into the training programs for judges,
prosecutors, lawyers, and police officers;
• regulating the legal status and procedures for engaging and verifying qualifications
of sign language interpreters;
• updating the official web portal “Judicial Power of Ukraine” by:
- updating the information content, primarily in the section containing information
for citizens;
- creating a mobile version of the portal;
- creating a separate section on alternative dispute resolution methods;
- adaptation to the needs of visually impaired persons (including by introducing
the necessary functionality);

68
• creating an English-language version to publish basic information about the activity
of the judicial system of Ukraine;
• introducing the practice of preparing annual reports on the state of ensuring access
to justice for persons with disabilities;
• creating a web portal about justice for children, with content adapted to the needs of
children of different age groups;
• introducing technologies to ensure secure remote work of judges and court staff.
Institutional projects:
• developing a system for monitoring the justice activity, which would include the
operational collection and automated analysis of statistical data (including by separate
categories of cases or persons appealing to court), organizing and conducting
sociological studies and surveys of users of court services and professional lawyers;
• conducting an audit of the judicial system for its “barrier-free” nature (including the
official websites of the courts) and developing, based on its results, a strategy for
ensuring unimpeded access to justice for persons with disabilities and standards for
court interaction with persons with disabilities;
• modernizing the court financing mechanism by introducing transparent procedures
for the formation of budget requests and allocation of funds, as well as control over
the effectiveness of expenditures;
• developing the concept of digitalization of the judiciary, to include provisions for
the implementation of artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies in current
activities;
• developing a system of secured communication for interaction among justice system
entities;
• creating an alternative (out-of-court) dispute resolution mechanism (for example, the
institute of justices of the peace) for consideration of minor cases.

Matrix_2022_eng.pdf

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Matrix_2022_eng.pdf (20)

More from Centre of Policy and Legal Reform (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Matrix_2022_eng.pdf