The History of the Formation of Judicial Self-Government Bodies in Ukraine (1991-2010)

Abstract

The article provides a comprehensive historical and legal analysis of the formation and evolution of judicial self-government bodies in Ukraine during the first two decades of its independence (1991-2010). The study traces this process through several distinct stages, beginning with the spontaneous emergence of self-organization initiatives by the judiciary immediately after 1991, which led to the first Congress of Judges and the creation of the Council of Judges of Ukraine. The institutionalization phase (1994-1996) is examined, marked by the adoption of the special Law ‘On Bodies of Judicial Self-Government’ and the enshrinement of judicial independence in the 1996 Constitution, which also established the High Council of Justice as a key body for judicial governance.

The paper further analyzes the contradictory period of the early 2000s, when the so-called ‘small judicial reform’ of 2002 formally expanded the powers of self-government bodies but simultaneously strengthened the influence of the executive branch, particularly the President, over judicial appointments and administrative leadership in courts. The subsequent period of liberalization after the ‘Orange Revolution’ (2005-2009) is highlighted, showing how judicial self-government bodies became more assertive in defending their independence against political pressure, culminating in a Constitutional Court decision that limited presidential control over the appointment of court chairpersons.

Finally, the article scrutinizes the major reorganization brought about by the judicial reform of 2010. This reform simplified the structure of self-government by eliminating regional conferences but recentralized crucial decision-making powers, especially regarding judicial careers and appointments, within the High Council of Justice, which was susceptible to political influence. The study concludes that throughout this period, judicial self-government evolved from informal associations into an integral, legally defined component of the judicial system, though its actual autonomy constantly fluctuated depending on the prevailing political context and the persistent efforts of other branches of government to maintain control over the judiciary.