1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the judge’s unsuitability for the position held and the submission for her dismissal.
2. The court substantiated its decision by stating that, in accordance with the Constitution and the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges,” it was the HQCJ panel, and not the plenary session, that had the authority to make the final decision on the suitability of a judge, appointed to the position before the entry into force of Law No. 1401-VIII, for the position held. The court emphasized that the evaluation procedure for the plaintiff was completed by the decision of the HQCJ panel in 2019, and the further continuation of this procedure, in particular the consideration of the issue by the plenary session, was unlawful. The court also noted that the conclusion of the Public Integrity Council (PIC) had already been evaluated by the HQCJ panel, and a repeated review of this conclusion by the plenary session is not provided for by law. In addition, the court emphasized that the procedure for the entry into force of the HQCJ decision is established by law, and not independently by the Commission. The court referred to the ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, which confirmed that, before the entry into force of Law No. 3511-IX, the evaluation of a judge for suitability for the position held was within the exclusive competence of the HQCJ panel.
3. The court partially granted the claim, recognizing as unlawful and revoking the decision of the HQCJ regarding the judge’s unsuitability for the position held.
