1. **Subject of the dispute:** A judge\u2019s challenge to the decisions of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) regarding the qualification assessment procedure, specifically the procedure for the entry into force of a decision on the suitability for the position held and the acceptance for consideration of an opinion of the Public Integrity Council (PIC).<\/p>\n
2. **Court\u2019s arguments:**
\n* The Court confirmed that the HQCJ does not have the authority to leave a PIC opinion without consideration, as such an opinion is part of the judge\u2019s dossier, which is subject to mandatory examination.
\n* The Grand Chamber noted that although the procedure for assessing “incumbent” judges (appointed before 2016) has its own specificities, it must be carried out in the manner prescribed by the Law “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”.
\n* The key point was the application of paragraph two of part one of Article 88 of the Law, which requires that a decision on confirming a judge\u2019s ability to administer justice in the presence of a negative PIC opinion must be adopted by the HQCJ exclusively in a plenary composition (by at least 11 votes).
\n* The Court emphasized that to ensure the uniformity of assessment standards, this approach (regarding the plenary composition) also applies to the assessment procedure for suitability for the position held, as provided for by the “transitional” provisions of the Law.
\n* Therefore, the HQCJ acted lawfully by determining the procedure for the entry into force of the decision through a plenary composition, as this complies with the requirements of the Law regarding the overcoming of a negative PIC opinion.
\n* The Court also emphasized that the right to judicial protection does not depend on whether a person continues to hold the position at the time of the case consideration, provided that the dispute arose during the period of service.
\n* **Precedent:** In this case, the Court expressly refers to its previous position set forth in the ruling dated January 15, 2026, in case No. 990\/62\/24, confirming the consistency of the approach regarding the mandatory plenary composition of the HQCJ in the presence of a negative PIC opinion.<\/p>\n
3. **Court\u2019s decision:** The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court granted the appellate appeal of the HQCJ, overturned the decision of the court of first instance in the part concerning the satisfaction of the claim, and adopted a new decision to dismiss the claim.<\/p>\n