1. The subject of the dispute is the challenge of the decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) and the High Council of Justice (HCJ) regarding the judge’s unsuitability for the position and her dismissal.<\/p>\n
2. In granting the claim, the court proceeded from the fact that the procedure for the qualification assessment of the judge was completed after the decision of the HQCJ in the composition of the panel on the judge’s suitability for the position and the subsequent decision of the HCJ to submit a proposal to the President of Ukraine on her appointment to the position, adopted on the basis of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” Regarding the Secondment of Judges and the Settlement of Other Issues of Ensuring the Functioning of the Justice System During the Absence of a Qualified Composition of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine”. The court emphasized that the HQCJ had no legal grounds to continue the already completed assessment procedure, and the HCJ had no right to decide on the dismissal of the judge based on the results of the reassessment. The court also noted that the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” and Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Improvement of Judicial Career Procedures”, which provides for a new version of the provisions on the assessment of judges, has no retroactive effect and cannot be the basis for resuming an already completed procedure. The Grand Chamber departed from the conclusions set out in the ruling of February 10, 2021, in case No. 990\/416\/19, noting that court decisions in case No. 9901\/416\/19 cannot be a proper justification for the fact that the qualification assessment procedure of Judge PERSON_1 is not completed, and be the basis for its continuation by the HQCJ in plenary session.<\/p>\n
3. The court overturned the decisions of the HQCJ and the HCJ regarding the judge’s unsuitability for the position and her dismissal, but refused to satisfy the claim for reinstatement, as the issue of reinstatement and inclusion in the court’s staff was not resolved, and the relevant court order on dismissal was not challenged.<\/p>\n