Abstract
Background: The article focuses on the issues and gaps in the legal regulation and practice of applying procedures for terminating the status of Ukrainian judges as a result of disciplinary liability. The study employs a combination of general and specific research methods, grounded in a philosophical approach, to understand the essence, nature, and particularities of national practice in light of European judicial law standards. By analysing the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the article demonstrates that European legal frameworks have established comprehensive standards for due process in disciplinary proceedings leading to the dismissal of judges. However, an analysis of the Ukrainian legal system for dismissing judges reveals significant inconsistencies with these European approaches. It is argued that Ukraine’s current legal framework for judicial dismissal following disciplinary proceedings fails to enhance judicial transparency and does not fully align with the national constitution, European Union standards, or international legal norms. Considering Ukraine's ambition to further integrate into the European Union, the article stresses the importance of adopting best practices and reforming the legal framework governing judicial dismissals due to disciplinary offences that render judges unfit to remain in office. Methods: The authors utilised a range of scientific research methods, including dialectic reasoning, observation, synthesis, analogy, and both inductive and deductive analysis. Formal and formal-legal methods were employed to understand the structure, objectives, and nature of the dismissal procedure for judges. A systematic analysis method was applied to search for and review relevant case law, especially from the ECtHR and CJEU. The study's conclusions are drawn from empirical material, providing a comprehensive understanding of both theoretical and practical aspects. Results and Conclusions: The research results provide scientifically grounded proposals for improving the legislative framework governing the dismissal of judges following disciplinary proceedings. These proposals are developed in line with the legal approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly concerning protecting judges' rights as public officials and ensuring the guarantees of judicial independence. The practical significance of the study is reflected in specific recommendations aimed at optimising the process of dismissing judges from office, clarifying the legitimate objectives behind such changes, and improving the functioning of the High Council of Justice in evaluating the grounds and procedures for dismissals resulting from disciplinary offences. A key recommendation is introducing the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings against judges, particularly in cases where their dismissal is being considered. This higher standard of proof would strengthen judicial independence by ensuring that dismissals are not the result of arbitrary or politically motivated decisions but are based on solid, substantiated evidence. The article emphasises the importance of these reforms for Ukraine’s legal system, not only in aligning with European legal standards but also in enhancing the transparency, fairness, and independence of the judiciary in Ukraine
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
