To answer this question, one must realize the situation we find ourselves in. A full-scale war is underway. Through incredible effort and at a high price, our armed forces are steadily driving the occupiers from our land. Yet this war is not just about territory. We are fighting not merely "against", but "for". For breaking away once and for all from the Russian sphere of influence and building our own strong, progressive state grounded in values shared with the civilized world: democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law. And that is impossible without reforms and fair justice.
We must admit that our judiciary had and still has serious problems. During the Revolution of Dignity, there were judges who differed little from Russian ones — readily convicting innocent protesters to please the authorities. This was even recognized by the European Court of Human Rights. The whole country heard the recordings from the office of the head of the District Administrative Court of Kyiv, which revealed overt and systemic trading in justice. Furthermore, according to the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, Putin’s plan to seize power in Ukraine included judicial decisions on lawsuits by Viktor Yanukovych. Therefore, these problems must be resolved, and it is no coincidence that judicial reform is a cornerstone condition for EU accession.
In reality, the war is fought on two fronts. In the rear, all of us are obligated to fight for the reforms that will enable us to overcome corruption, arbitrariness, and other ills that prevented us from becoming a full member of the European community. When our valiant warriors return with victory over the enemy, they will surely ask us: where is your victory?
That is why I regret that the question of whether the High Council of Justice will be formed in the near future even arises. I would prefer there to be zero doubt. We have come a long way. We have 16 candidates who passed all vetting procedures and received recommendations from the Ethics Council. They represent all judicial tiers and jurisdictions. There are worthy candidates capable of delivering qualitative changes to the system. There are no valid arguments to justify failing to fill all 8 vacancies that will allow the HCJ to resume functioning.
It is highly symbolic that it is up to the judges whether the most important judicial governance body finally starts working. I am confident that the congress delegates understand their responsibility before the entire judicial corps and society, and will fulfill their duty to elect judicial representatives to the HCJ.
Therefore, I expect the HCJ to become quorate already in January, and soon after, prosecutors, scholars, attorneys, and the President will appoint their representatives, enabling the HCJ to operate at full capacity.
This largely depends on what this new composition looks like and what goals HCJ members set for themselves. In my conviction, the absolute majority will be committed to finally delivering genuine judicial reform, solving problems that concern both judges and citizens, and restoring public trust in the judiciary. Under such conditions, we will succeed in finding consensus and the work will not stall.
My primary priority and mission in office are enshrined in the oath I took as an HCJ member. To me, these are not mere words. I intend to fulfill them through concrete actions and do everything in my power to ensure the judicial system consists of judges of integrity and high professionalism who are truly independent and protected from unlawful influence, while society trusts the courts because everyone has genuine access to fair justice.
The HCJ will bear the responsibility for overcoming key challenges in the judicial system and shaping roughly half of the judicial corps that will administer justice for the next 15–20 years. Thus, the future of the judiciary truly hinges on this HCJ composition, and we must fully comprehend our responsibility.
More specifically, the number one priority is undoubtedly addressing the challenges posed by the war. The HCJ, together with the entire judicial system, must find ways to ensure continuous administration of justice even amid constant threats of shelling and power outages. In this context, I strongly support remote court proceedings, which would allow both parties and judges to participate in hearings from any location where feasible.
Forming the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) is another urgent task. We are already working on criteria to select the best candidates among those recommended by the Selection Commission, and I hope we will organize this process so that no one has any doubt about the fairness of the choice.
The judicial staffing shortage has not disappeared, and the HCJ together with the HQCJ must finally alleviate it. I strongly support simplifying selection procedures and expediting judicial appointments. At the same time, I believe the Public Integrity Council must be involved. This will definitely elevate the quality and credibility of appointed judges.
Disciplinary practice will unequivocally be a priority area for me. There must be an understanding of the inevitability of punishment for obvious arbitrariness. Concurrently, judges must feel assured of protection against groundless accusations and unlawful interference in their judicial activities. We are also working on summarizing disciplinary practice, which I hope will make it more consistent and predictable for judges.
I will also advocate for the HCJ to adopt a proactive stance in detecting and responding to unlawful schemes executed through questionable rulings or procedural manipulations. We must have mechanisms for swift and effective responses to such occurrences.
And certainly the development of electronic justice. I will make every effort to fully implement the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunication System (UJITS). It must be user-friendly, genuinely simplify and optimize court proceedings, and prevent interference or manipulation. The system’s analytical capabilities should enable us to promptly identify and address operational challenges across the judiciary.
First and foremost, it depends on what the new HCJ composition will be. Trust in an institution stems from trust in its members. I believe the current procedure of selecting new members who undergo vetting by the Ethics Council partially addresses this. The new HCJ will enjoy greater public trust, but will also face higher expectations.
The new HCJ must become much more open. In the near future, live broadcasts of all Council meetings should be restored. We must also communicate more actively with the public, understanding the root causes of societal distrust. Problems should not be denied, but acknowledged and resolved in active dialogue with judges and civil society. We should also highlight commendable judicial actions that earn respect and admiration. There are many such stories, especially during wartime.
Above all, trust depends on tangible results. If everyone sees that a judge who commits a violation faces just disciplinary sanctions, that no one is persecuted for an independent stance, that candidates of integrity become judges through competitive processes, and that the HCJ responds adequately to misconduct, public trust in the judiciary will inevitably grow.
Naturally, not everything depends solely on the HCJ. The public must also recognize the positive developments, but first those positive changes must become much more widespread and visible.
Undoubtedly. The effective performance of our functions is directly linked to amending or introducing legislation. We participate in many discussions on draft laws and propose our own. Yet without the right of legislative initiative, our voice often goes unheeded. Granting this constitutional body such authority would allow for much faster resolution of judicial issues, primarily to enhance citizens’ access to fair justice.
Of course it differs. The office establishes certain boundaries and imposes additional constraints, especially regarding commenting on judicial conduct. At the same time, it provides opportunities I did not have as an attorney or civic activist. Ultimately, I pursued this role for a long time and was prepared for what awaited me. Some bureaucratic procedures feel unusual and certain ones definitely require modernization, but I do not face significant difficulties.
The work of an HCJ member, much like that of a judge, is demanding. Decisions must be lawful and objective, regardless of extraneous factors. Perhaps the most difficult moment arises when there is a tension between perceived justice and strict statutory boundaries. But everything depends on sound legal reasoning and conscientious fulfillment of one’s duties.
In work as in everyday life, my fundamental principles are integrity, justice, accountability, and red lines that I never cross. I am always open to arguments and constructive dialogue, but it is impossible to "settle matters" with me unlawfully. I am accustomed to heavy workloads and ready to dedicate myself fully throughout my term of office.