The Pathologies of the Reformist Zeal
The Venice Commission Tempers the Eagerness of the Ukrainian Judiciary Reform
On 14 October 2025, the Venice Commission issued an Opinion No. 1247/2025 concerning the anticipated changes to Ukrainian judiciary legislation. The Opinion criticizes the proposed judiciary reform for being disproportionate or even erratic experimentation. Indeed, Ukraine’s judiciary reformers never rest – but perhaps that’s the problem. This blog post argues that a more measured, constructive path forward to proceed with the judiciary reform is now essential.
The need for the judges’ disciplinary framework reform
The focus of the legislation drafts reviewed by the Venice Commission (projects No. 13137, 13137-2, 13165-2) concerned the disciplinary framework for the judiciary. The parliamentarians behind the draft legislation justified the need for the reform with the fact that current disciplinary framework for judges was established in 2016 and has since not undergone substantive revision. According to the legislators, a decade of the application of existing framework revealed deficiencies in its effectiveness. The parliamentarians’ proposals boil down to three main areas: the scope of the right to initiate disciplinary complaints, revising the grounds for disciplinary liability, and disclosure of family ties by judges.
Notably, even under existing Ukrainian Law on the Judiciary and Status of Judges of 6 December 2019 (currently in force), any person has the right to submit a complaint against a judge alleging a disciplinary offence. In other words, the current law already provides for a general right to make a complaint against any judge by anyone. The current system is already too egalitarian. The planned legislative changes push this further, entrusting investigative commissions of the parliament (and some other bodies) with a right to submit disciplinary complaints. However, allowing elected politicians the power to refer disciplinary complaints may conflict with the principle of judicial independence.
While civil society organizations, involved in monitoring the judiciary, strongly defend this legal provision, a potential for abuse is evident – unwarranted complaints backlog the system and harass individual judges. Even if proceedings do not find a judge liable, reputation damages for individual judges, who are not able to focus on the task of adjudicating, are clear. Contrary to the legislators’ intent, “a high number of disciplinary complaints against judges will also diminish public confidence in the judiciary, even if a substantial percentage of these complaints do not actually result in finding that a judge has committed a disciplinary offence.” (Opinion No. 1247/2025, para. 65). The Venice Commission maintained “that the right to submit complaint against a judge should be limited to persons who have been affected by the acts [of the] the judge” or those who have “legitimate interest in the matter” (para. 68). The Venice Commission further recommended introducing a monetary fee system to curb down submissions of unfounded disciplinary complaints.
Legislative amendments also revise the declarations of integrity and family ties of a judge. It is worth pointing out that under the current framework, judges are required to submit annual asset declarations (monitored by NACP) and declarations on integrity and on family relations (monitored by HQCJ) – all of these are published online. Additionally, when assessing these declarations, HQCJ may require a judge to submit “other” statements to verify adherence to ethical standards and “impeccable behavior”. In view of the Venice Commission, existing law already gives HQCJ too broad discretion as there is no exhaustive list of what counts as a relevant statement (para. 87). The current framework already burdens judges with administrative tasks and a lot of paperwork. Yet, the draft law further requires judges to submit information on the legality of the source of property they own, to prove that their living standard corresponds to their income and the income of their family, and to prove the absence of grounds for disciplinary responsibility, and the absence of foreign country citizenship.
The context of the Opinion of the Venice Commission
The Opinion urges Ukrainian authorities to adopt a holistic and coherent approach to the judiciary reform prioritizing proper implementation of already existing frameworks. The Opinion drafters are right. Since 2015, successive rounds of legislative reforms concerning the judiciary have been introduced, often driven and supported by Ukraine’s activist civil society and conditioned by the Ukrainian donors such as the EU and the IMF.
These reforms were sweeping in scope. They included overhauling the disciplinary framework for the judiciary, setting up asset declarations and family ties disclosures for judges, and re-establishing judicial self-government bodies – such as the High Council of Justice of Ukraine (HCJ) and the High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ) – after meticulous vetting. In parallel, several new anti-corruption bodies were created: the Agency on Corruption Prevention (NAPC), the Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecution (SAPO). A new High Anti-Corruption Court (HAC) was tasked to handle criminal cases involving high-profile corruption.
The effects of these reforms have been mixed. While Ukraine’s international partners have recognized notable progress, questions persist as to whether transformations have truly fostered a change in the judicial behaviour. Corruption continues to afflict the judiciary, particularly its higher echelons – as illustrated by the 2023 bribery case involving the president of the Supreme Court. In that light, it remains unclear whether these new proposals as well as constant changes are capable to better address the integrity problems within the judiciary.
In recent years, the Venice Commission’s most extensive and influential engagement with Ukraine has centred on judicial reform. Before and after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, nearly every major significant legislative initiative concerning the judiciary was submitted to the Venice Commission for expert review – notably the Opinions issued in 2020, 2021, and 2023. The Venice Commission supported the Ukraine’s reforms regarding the participation of international experts in the re-establishment of HQCJ, HCJ and in the nomination of judges to the HAC and the Constitutional Court. While these were all measures to enhance integrity within the judiciary, they also raise sovereignty-related concerns.
A way forward
Ukrainian lawmakers and civil society reform coalitions continue to embrace a narrative of uncompromising rule of law reforms. This reformist narrative stems from the post-Euromaidan reform trajectory of the country when the rationale for transformative action was a response to the legacy of Viktor Yanukovych’s presidency (in office: 2010-2014), with endemic corruption being the prime malaise. Over time, however, the pursuit of reform has evolved into a quest for ever more far-reaching measures, driven by the conviction that only drastic change and radical transparency can bring integrity to public institutions. In many respects, the new Venice Commission Opinion simply underscores this tendency. A previous Venice Commission Opinion 1147/2023 on Ukraine’s proposals to subject judges to regular polygraph testing and to introduce a new type of selective “court monitoring” by HCJ was similarly critical of reformist overreach.
The preference for the ever-lasting transformative reformist narrative deserves scrutiny. Many necessary legislative and institutional frameworks are already in place, particularly in the field of anti-corruption. Thus, the ongoing narrative of perpetual “cleansing”, accompanied with a great supply of erratic measures to enhance transparency – to the point where they verge on interfering with judicial independence and the stability of the judicial system – is highly questionable.
For Ukraine, a new political ground for the rule of law reforms should be found. To move forward, a technocratic and incremental narrative should be fostered among the Ukrainian authorities and the reform networks within civil society.
Disclosure: The writing of this piece was supported by a re:constitution Fellowship (Forum Transregionale Studien, Democracy Reporting International, funded by Stiftung Mercator). The views expressed are my own.