The active desire for European democracy and, of course, the next tranches, influenced the general organization of members of parliament and the coherence of their actions in resolving this, of course, important issue.
The idea of creating an Anti-Corruption Court, unfortunately, cannot be called absolutely Ukrainian, since it arose as a result of external pressure, primarily from the IMF.
The inability of the state to independently solve economic problems amid the political crisis led to the urgent need for tranches of the IMF. The size of the last promised is $ 800 million.
A prerequisite for obtaining a loan is the creation of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court in Ukraine.
In such circumstances, the question of compliance of the bill with international standards is vital for both the country and its political elite.
Therefore, the bill is submitted by local and international public as a panacea in the fight against corruption, developed according to all the canons of European democracy.
The stumbling block in the issue of compliance of the bill with international standards is the country’s political elite’s desire to maintain a balance between meeting the requirements of international partners and maintaining their own influence on representatives of all three branches of the country’s government, including through the exercise of justice at its discretion.
Judging by the dissatisfaction of the main international partners, the aforementioned is not entirely successful.
So what, in fact, is the problem?
And everything is nowhere simpler. The Supreme Anti-Corruption Court is needed by all parties only if there is control over its activities, which can be fully ensured by monitoring the appointment of judges.
Actually, therefore, according to the bill, in order to assist in the staffing of the court, a public council of international experts is created.
Therefore, throughout the entire period of implementation of the legislative initiative to create a bill, the IMF reminded itself and the previously voiced requirements regarding the provision of the broadest possible powers to the public council of international experts in the appointment of judges.
In this situation, is it worth talking about the independence of judges and the concept of independence in general?
Let’s take a closer look at the public council of international experts.
In the bill signed by the President on June 11, the powers and procedure for forming the council are provided for in Article Nine.
According to this norm, members of the public council are appointed by the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine solely on the basis of recommendations of international organizations with which Ukraine cooperates in the field of preventing and combating corruption in accordance with international treaties of Ukraine.
To such organizations, first of all, it is necessary to include a group of states against corruption, as fundamental in the territory of the European community.
Thus, the appointment of judges will occur according to the will from the outside, and the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine in this process is only an intermediary.
In conclusion and, in fairness, it is worth noting that there is no reason to perceive this from a negative point of view, but the principle of independence of judges and courts may have to be reviewed as archaic.
