Ukraine approves judicial reform, critics warn of authoritarianism

Ukraine’s parliament
approved on Oct. 4 legislation that amends numerous legal codes as part of a
structural reform of Ukraine’s judiciary. It establishes Ukraine’s Supreme
Court as the single court of cassation, creates a new order of reviewing its
cases, as well as establishes norms that clarify judicial processes. The reform
creates a Higher Intellectual Rights Court in Ukraine’s economic court, as well
as enhances the role of judicial fees as a means of financing the judicial system.
An “electronic court” is created that foresees the functioning of a Single
Judicial Information Telecommunications System. The legislation was approved in
the second reading with the support of the Poroshenko Bloc, the People’s Front
(aligned with the president), two business-oriented groups of MPs and a
majority of the Russian-oriented Opposition Bloc. It will be signed by the
president.

The president’s
opponents, including both the pro-Western Yulia Tymoshenko and Russian-oriented
Vadim Novinsky, said the judicial reforms are a step towards authoritarianism.
“In conditions in which the president is clearly aiming to build an
authoritarian regime with full control of courts, for the sake of securing the
needed results in the elections, I regret that some of my colleagues in the
faction aided Bankova in its plans and voted to transfer the judiciary under
the full control of the president,” Novinsky wrote on his Facebook page.

Similarly Tymoshenko
referred to the legislation as a criminal “usurpation of the judicial branch of government.” In addition, she
criticized the legislation for allowing judge to block live broadcasts of
proceedings. The newly introduced fees and services, in some cases doubling,
practically makes access the judiciary inaccessible to the majority of
Ukraine’s citizens, who live below the international poverty line, Tymoshenko
said.

In addition,
Self-Reliance MP Yegor Sobolev said the law enables criminal cases to be closed
within two months after a suspect is named. Meanwhile, certain provisions are
written vaguely enough to allow the Prosecutor General to interfere in any
case. A parliamentary body that reviews legislation determined that the law
restricts legal cases that reach cassation, which limits the constitutional
rights of legal parties and could lead to a swelling in cases being appealed to
the European Human Rights Court.