1. **Subject of the Dispute:** Challenging, by a candidate for the position of a judge of an appellate court, the decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the results of the qualification examination (practical task) and the refusal to admit the candidate to the next stage of the competition due to receiving a score below the passing threshold.
2. **Court’s Arguments:**
– The court established that the HQCJ acted within the scope of its discretionary powers, and the evaluation procedure complied with the requirements of the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” and the Commission’s internal regulations.
– The court emphasized that current legislation and the internal acts of the HQCJ do not contain requirements for recording scores separately for each element of a practical task; therefore, the absence of such detail in the decision does not constitute a violation.
– Regarding the arguments concerning the use of outdated legislation, the court found that the necessary regulatory acts (including amendments to the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine) were available to candidates on the internal network, and the identified discrepancies in the wording of the norms did not affect the overall evaluation result.
– The court rejected the arguments regarding the interference of third parties in the evaluation process, noting that the provided evidence (system login timestamps) does not confirm the fact of unauthorized interference specifically during the review of the plaintiff’s papers.
– Citing the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, the court emphasized that Methodological Guidelines No. 228/zp-24 are an instructional document for internal use by the commission, rather than norms requiring open, element-by-element reporting of assigned scores.
– The court also noted that a candidate’s disagreement with an assigned score is not grounds for overturning a decision, as the assessment of professional skills falls within the exclusive competence of the examination commission.
3. **Court Decision:** The Supreme Court dismissed the claims of [NAME] in full.
**Important Note:** In this decision, the court expressly refers to the legal conclusions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court formed in cases No. 990/171/25 and No. 990/223/25 regarding the application of Methodological Guidelines No. 228/zp-24, confirming the consistency of judicial practice; therefore, there are no grounds for designating it as a “departure from a previous position.”
