Ukraine’s justice system is operating under the strain of war while continuing a far-reaching programme of reform. This report examines how courts and other justice institutions have maintained services despite damaged infrastructure, increased demand and disrupted working conditions, and how they are adapting to support recovery and European integration. It looks at how justice is organised and delivered in practice, including access to services, the handling of cases, the use of digital tools and the experience of people navigating the system. It also explores how the system is addressing the threefold challenge of maintaining ordinary justice services, ensuring accountability for war crimes and laying the foundations for transitional justice. The report highlights both the resilience of institutions and the pressures they face, from staff shortages and funding constraints to growing legal needs linked to war and displacement. The report provides an overview of how the justice system is functioning today and where improvements could help ensure that services remain effective and responsive to people’s needs across the country.
OECD Justice Review of Ukraine
Abstract
Executive summary
Ukraine launched a broad programme of reform after the 2013-2014 Revolution of Dignity to strengthen democracy and the rule of law. Since then, changes have been made to improve the functioning of the justice system and the anti-corruption framework, contributing to a steady improvement in Ukraine’s Rule of Law Index (RLI) score between 2015 and 2021. Ukraine’s Association Agreement with the European Union (EU), which entered fully into force in 2017, provided further direction for reform and supported alignment with European standards. Russia’s war of aggression, escalating into a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, has placed continued strain on the justice system, complicating the continuity of justice reforms. Damage to infrastructure, security risks, disruptions to energy supply, human resource impacts and the application of martial law have affected institutional functioning and the provision of justice services. Demand for justice services has increased, legal needs have intensified and new justice problems have emerged.
Reforms since 2014 have focused on strengthening governance, improving co-ordination, reinforcing integrity and modernising service delivery. The re-establishment of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) and the resumption of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) restored key governance functions, while specialised administrative courts are being established. Digitalisation has expanded, and integrity safeguards have been strengthened within the judiciary. The Rule of Law Roadmap approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU) in May 2025 as part of Ukraine’s EU accession process, sets out over 500 pre-accession measures, covering justice, fundamental rights and related areas. Legislative and inter-agency frameworks support co-ordination, including structured engagement of civil society and international partners. At the same time, justice institutions continue to operate under wartime constraints that affect planning, resource allocation, service delivery and broader reform implementation.
Institutional arrangements for governance and co-ordination have improved but remain complex. Responsibilities are distributed across multiple bodies, including the HCJ, the HQCJ and the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine (SJA). Overlapping mandates and fragmented decision-making affect efficiency, particularly in areas such as judicial staffing and financial management. Strategic planning functions are not fully consolidated, and co-ordination among institutions is uneven. Data-sharing remains limited, restricting the ability to manage cases across institutions and to plan reforms based on evidence. The territorial jurisdiction of courts reflects administrative divisions and wartime adjustments and there is scope to better align resources with workload and legal needs. Community Justice Centres (CJCs) operate under varying mandates and standards, limiting their role as consistent entry points into the justice system.
Constitutional and legislative guarantees of separation of powers and judicial independence are well established, and integrity-based selection procedures for judges and judicial governance bodies have been strengthened. The establishment of the Disciplinary Inspectors Service (DIS) has improved the management of disciplinary proceedings, and Unified Integrity Indicators have formalised criteria for assessing judicial conduct. Transparency has increased through the publication of decisions, procedures and statistical information. Yet, challenges remain in perceptions of judicial independence and trust in justice institutions. Nearly 69% of respondents report a lack of trust in the Supreme Court of Ukraine (SC), reflecting persistent perceptions of corruption, undue influence and inconsistent application of accountability measures. High-profile cases involving senior judicial officials have reinforced these concerns. Reports of interference with judicial activity and constraints related to security and financial predictability affect the practical exercise of independence.
Justice institutions have maintained service delivery during wartime, and key performance indicators remain broadly aligned with European benchmarks, particularly disposition times in first-instance civil, commercial and criminal cases and, in many areas, clearance-rate performance and pending caseload levels. However, sustainability of performance is constrained by staffing shortages, uneven operational capacity and gaps in performance management. As of April 2026, 2 293 judicial positions (34.8%) were vacant, which contributes to increased workload for sitting judges. Performance management systems are in place but are not consistently applied across institutions. Differences in case clearance rates and risks of a growing backlog indicate the need for more systematic caseflow management. Non-enforcement of court decisions remains a structural challenge, affecting the effectiveness of the justice system and justice outcomes for people. Digital tools have supported continuity of services, including case management and remote participation, but interoperability across systems and the use of data for planning remain limited. Infrastructure damage and reliance on input-based funding constrain modernisation and long-term investment.
Ukraine has taken steps towards a more people-centred justice system, including through digitalisation, legal aid services, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and community-based service delivery. Legal needs have increased, particularly among internally displaced persons, residents of war-affected areas, veterans and their families, persons with disabilities and children. Barriers to access include distance, cost, documentation requirements, limited information and lack of access to digital tools. Service delivery remains organised around institutional mandates, with limited integration across pathways. Access and outcomes vary across regions and population groups, reflecting differences in capacity and exposure to wartime disruption. Strengthening the availability and interoperability of data, improving understanding of legal needs and clarifying pathways among courts, legal aid, ADR and community services would support more consistent and accessible justice outcomes. Aligning institutional improvements with the experience of people using the system remains central to sustaining performance, improving trust and supporting recovery and long-term resilience.
