Legal changes have diminished the power of the nation's high court.
The election of Petro Pylypchuk as the new head of Ukraine’s Supreme Court is not likely to improve the sorry state of Ukraine’s judiciary, notorious for its lack of transparency and politically influenced decisions, analysts said.
While most experts do not question Pylypchuk’s skills and reputation as an independent figure, few believe he has the power and influence to bring change.
Pylypchuk, elected in late December, began his tenure with a statement about the need to restore the status of the Supreme Court, largely diminished after changes in 2010 stripping the court of most powers as the place of ultimate appeal.
Instead, these powers were transferred to specialized higher courts, which decide whether their rulings can be appealed in the Supreme Court. In addition, appeals in the Supreme Court can deal only with the case’s substance, and not with any procedural violations by the lower courts.
As a result, the only real power that the Supreme Court retained is to consider court rulings that the European Court of Justice has found as violating the international obligations by Ukraine.
Experts suspect that politics were at play in such a drastic reduction of the Supreme Court powers, as it was headed by Vasyl Onopenko, an ally of ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, sentenced to a seven-year prison term for her role in signing a 2009 gas deal with Russia.
The government’s policy towards the judiciary led to the situation when citizens of the country hate the judges, while the international community despises them.
– Kateryna Tarasova, board chairman of Ukraine’s Court Association for Promotion of Justice
Kateryna Tarasova, board chairman of Ukraine’s Court Association for Promotion of Justice, a Kyiv-based nongovernmental organization uniting a group of both acting and retired judges, said she does not envy Pylypchuk’s job, as she calls the current situation in the country’s judiciary “the worst time ever.”
“The government’s policy towards the judiciary led to the situation when citizens of the country hate the judges, while the international community despises them,” she said. “And the judges themselves ignored their rights and duties for so long that they have put themselves into a deadlock.”
Overall, the Venice Commission’s conclusion regarding the judicial reform of 2010 is very similar to Pylypchuk’s proclaimed intentions.
Its experts call for extension of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction, so that it can implement its constitutional status as the highest judicial body in Ukraine.
Yet, while the professional qualities of Pylypchuk, who became a Supreme Court judge before Ukraine’s independence, are widely acknowledged, few believe he will be able to restore the status of his institution.
He lacks political support from the pro-presidential ruling Party of Regions necessary to implement such legislative changes.
In addition, given that Pylypchuk reaches the retirement age of 65 in October, he will most likely be replaced well before his five-year tenure ends.
Sergiy Gryshko, an associate at the Kyiv officeof CMS Cameron McKenna, an international law firm, said Pylypchuk’s relative independence from any political influence actually weakens his position.
“With all due respect, Pylypchuk doesn’t have enough time [to change the current state of things],” Gryshko said. “In present conditions it will be very difficult to do without enough political support. He is not a creature of any political force., primarily Party of the Regions.”
Kyiv Post staff writer Vlad Lavrov can be reached at: [email protected]
