OECD Justice Review of Ukraine

1. Pathways to reform: Assessment and recommendations

Abstract

This chapter presents the key findings of the OECD Justice Review of Ukraine and sets out recommendations to strengthen governance, the interplay of justice system values, capacity, performance and resilience, and people-centred service delivery across Ukraine’s justice system. The recommendations aim to support the implementation of Ukraine’s justice reform priorities by facilitating alignment with European Union accession and integration requirements and promoting convergence with OECD standards, with a focus on strengthening a people-centred justice system. The chapter concludes by outlining the project and the structure of the Review.

1.1. Introduction and general assessment

Over the last decade, Ukraine has undertaken significant reforms to strengthen democratic governance, the rule of law and the functioning of the justice system. Accession to the European Union (EU) has become one of the key drivers of justice reforms, notably in the areas of judicial governance, digitalisation, integrity and accountability.

Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine has placed the justice system under severe pressure. It has added to long-standing constraints, including judicial understaffing, underfunding and heavy workloads, while security threats and damage to justice infrastructure have affected operational continuity and access to services. The war has complicated reform implementation and weakened the momentum for sustained institutional change. It has also increased demand for justice services and created new and often complex legal needs across Ukraine. Despite these conditions, Ukraine’s justice sector has remained resilient and continued to pursue structural reforms while maintaining service delivery.

Recent reforms have strengthened the institutional framework for judicial governance and improved co-ordination in support of EU accession priorities, including through the Rule of Law Roadmap. Progress in digitalisation and inter-institutional co-operation has also helped maintain justice services during the war. Yet persistent challenges continue to affect the effectiveness, accessibility and legitimacy of the justice system. Governance arrangements remain fragmented, while data-sharing, performance management and evidence-based monitoring are uneven. In several areas, institutional arrangements, planning frameworks and service delivery models also remain insufficiently integrated across the broader justice ecosystem. Shortages of judges and court staff, insufficient and unpredictable funding, and ongoing difficulties in enforcing court decisions continue to constrain the system.

Public confidence in justice institutions remains fragile, reflecting perceptions of corruption and undue influence, as well as concerns about the consistent application of integrity safeguards and accountability mechanisms. Importantly, public trust in justice institutions depends on formal safeguards and institutional design as well as on perceptions regarding fairness, consistency, transparency and predictability in institutional practice. A key challenge is therefore to close the gap between formal safeguards and their implementation in practice, so as to protect judicial independence while ensuring transparent, credible and consistently applied integrity and accountability frameworks. This requires recognising independence, accountability, integrity and transparency as mutually reinforcing dimensions of a broader justice values system.

Ukraine has laid important foundations for a more people-centred justice system, including through the expansion of digital justice services, legal aid and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. However, access to justice and justice outcomes remain uneven across regions and population groups, particularly for people affected by displacement and social vulnerability. In line with the OECD Recommendation on Access to Justice and People-Centred Justice Systems [OECD/LEGAL/0498] (‘OECD Recommendation’), systematically collected data and evidence on legal needs and justice problems should serve as a basis for designing sectoral reforms, improving interoperability and referral pathways across justice institutions and services, and ensuring more accessible, responsive and resilient justice services. This includes supporting more integrated territorial planning and development of a broader “justice services map” linking legal needs, service distribution and justice outcomes across regions.

This chapter brings together the main findings of the Review and sets out recommendations for improving sectoral governance, co-ordination and planning; strengthening the interplay between independence, accountability, integrity and transparency; enhancing capacity, performance and data-driven justice; bolstering financial resilience, infrastructure and operational continuity; and improving the design and delivery of people-centred justice services.

Grounded in this assessment, the OECD policy recommendations aim to support Ukraine in advancing justice reforms aligned with EU accession requirements and OECD standards, while strengthening public trust, institutional resilience and people-centred justice outcomes.

1.2. Recommendations

1.2.1. Improving sectoral governance, co-ordination and planning

Since 2014, institutional reform in the justice sector has been a central element of the rule of law agenda in Ukraine. The re-establishment of the High Council of Justice (HCJ) in 2017, and its subsequent reconstitution in 2023 after a period of institutional disruption, allowed the gradual restoration of the central mechanism for the selection, evaluation and mobility of judges. After almost four years of inactivity, in 2023, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine (HQCJ) resumed its function of selecting and verifying candidates for judicial positions. Another milestone was reached in December 2024, when the Disciplinary Inspectors Service (DIS) began operating within the Secretariat of the HCJ and assumed responsibility for supporting the management and processing of disciplinary cases. More recently, progress has also been made in reforming the administrative justice system. In September 2025, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (VRU) adopted a law laying the groundwork for the establishment of the Specialised District Administrative Court (SDAC) and the Specialised Administrative Court of Appeal (SACA) (VRU, 2025[1]). These courts are intended to adjudicate cases involving higher state authorities and were created to replace the District Administrative Court of Kyiv (DACK) liquidated in December 2022. While the competition processes for the SDAC and the SACA are ongoing, their full staffing and operationalisation will mark an important step towards restoring administrative justice capacity and improving access to justice in disputes involving executive authorities. It will also support Ukraine’s commitments under the EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reform processes.

In terms of inter-institutional co-ordination, the legislative framework creates the foundations for ensuring coherence in the organisation of the justice system and efforts to safeguard judicial independence. Sectoral co-ordination is further supported by thematic working groups and inter-agency mechanisms, particularly in areas of reform related to EU accession. Co-operation with civil society organisations (CSOs) and service providers at the local community level remains a well-developed component of the system, particularly in supporting outreach and service delivery. At the international level, structured co-operation with donors and partners, including in the field of criminal law, supports alignment with regional standards and the mobilisation of external assistance for justice sector reforms.

With regard to strategic planning in the justice sector, previous justice strategies for 2015-2020 and 2021-2023 enabled the consolidation and systematisation of key reforms for the justice sector. With the growing prominence of EU accession, and in view of challenges arising from Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, strategic planning for the justice system has become even more critical. Although the new draft Strategy for the Development of the Justice System and Constitutional Justice is yet to be adopted, the Rule of Law Roadmap approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (CMU) outlines key reform measures on the way to EU accession. The Roadmap provides a framework for sequencing reforms and ensuring the engagement of specific justice institutions in ensuring progress under Chapters 23 and 24 of the EU acquis. It should therefore be understood not only as a sectoral planning document, but also as a time-bound accession instrument. Its measures include specific deadlines extending to the end of 2027, which can help translate EU accession requirements into sequenced institutional reforms, implementation responsibilities and monitoring milestones. Effective implementation of the envisaged measures will require continuous co-ordination and co-operation within government and among the government, justice institutions, international donors and CSOs.

In addition, strategic planning in the justice sector is most effective when linked to measurable outcomes and aligned with how people experience legal and justice problems in practice. This requires planning not only for individual institutions, but for the overall justice service offer, including courts, legal aid, ADR, community services and administrative pathways, so that services respond coherently to evolving legal needs and support accessible and people-centred justice outcomes. Importantly, given the breadth of ongoing reforms and wartime constraints, sequencing, institutional absorption capacity and implementation sustainability will remain important considerations for maintaining reform effectiveness and institutional continuity. This is particularly relevant in light of the significant role played by international partners in financing and supporting justice reforms. Such involvement can create risks of fragmentation, duplication or dependency if not sufficiently integrated into national planning, budgeting and monitoring frameworks.

Notwithstanding the comprehensive governance framework, the division of responsibilities between judicial governance bodies, including the HCJ, the HQCJ, the State Judicial Administration (SJA) and the Council of Judges of Ukraine (CJU), has led to a complex institutional structure. The existing configuration reflects deliberate efforts to prevent excessive concentration of authority and strengthen internal checks and balances within judicial governance. However, it also creates operational risks for reform implementation, including under the Rule of Law Roadmap and the EU enlargement process, where the timely filling of judicial vacancies, qualification evaluation of sitting judges, disciplinary accountability, court financing and digitalisation depend on coherent action across judicial governance bodies. Clarifying competences and decision-making roles across these institutions could therefore help streamline processes, support more timely decision-making and strengthen Ukraine’s capacity to meet EU accession commitments.

Clarifying legal provisions governing judicial governance institutions may resolve some of this complexity. As envisaged in the Rule of Law Roadmap, a consolidated functional audit covering mandates, decision-making powers and accountability arrangements within these bodies would constitute an analytical basis for assessing whether the current structures are proportionate to operational needs or whether more structural simplification of governance arrangements may be warranted in the longer term. In parallel, strengthening the capacity of the CJU and the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine (CoP), including through adequate budgetary resources and a review of membership rules, could contribute to enhancing the autonomous governance of judges and prosecutors and support more sustainable governance arrangements.

The current territorial organisation of courts of first instance has been largely determined by administrative divisions, with ad hoc relocation of court jurisdiction due to ongoing hostilities. In the current circumstances, there is scope for further optimisation of the judicial map based on workload statistics and growing evidence of people’s legal needs and justice problems. This may become increasingly important in the context of demographic change, internal displacement and uneven territorial demand for justice services resulting from the war. At the same time, at the local level, because CJCs operate under varying mandates, standards and financing frameworks, their role as consistent points of entry into the justice system may be limited. Thus, clarifying their functions and operational standards, as well as integrating CJCs into broader justice pathways, could enhance their sustainability and effectiveness as consistent entry points into the justice system, improving access to justice at the local level.

Sectoral co-ordination functions effectively in most areas but remains constrained in data sharing. Under the leadership of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine (MoJ), there is scope to establish a shared justice data dictionary, common identifiers and formalised data governance arrangements with clear delineation of institutional responsibilities for approving standards, overseeing data interoperability and ensuring compliance with rules pertaining to security and ethical use of data. Implementing these measures could enhance interoperability, enable end-to-end management of justice pathways and strengthen performance monitoring across justice institutions. More coherent governance of justice-sector data could also support strategic planning, improve continuity across justice pathways and strengthen the capacity of institutions to respond to evolving legal needs and war-related pressures. These changes could be aligned with broader reforms promoting data-driven public administration, including ongoing work under the Public Administration Reform agenda, supported by the EU and the Support for Improvement in Governance and Management (SIGMA) initiative and co-ordinated by the Secretariat of the CMU and the Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration. In parallel, more consistent use of formalised co-operation arrangements with CSOs, for example through memoranda of understanding, would help systematise their contribution to justice reforms, support feedback loops and expand outreach at the local level, including through CJCs, while limiting administrative burden.

While the MoJ plays a central co-ordinating role within the justice system at the operational level, strategic planning for the justice system has thus far been led by the Office of the President of Ukraine (OPU). Moreover, EU accession has strengthened the role of the Deputy Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration and the Government Office for Co-ordination of European and Euro-Atlantic Integration in steering cross-government priorities, monitoring implementation of accession commitments and co-ordinating engagement with the European Commission. Clarifying the respective roles of the OPU, the MoJ and the CMU within the strategic planning framework for the justice sector could help improve clarity in co-ordination functions and continuity in the planning of justice reforms, provided that appropriate safeguards preserve institutional independence, ministerial responsibility and the constitutional balance between institutions. This may be particularly important given the cross-sectoral nature of ongoing reforms, including those related to anti-corruption, public administration reform and digitalisation. Indeed, the clarification of roles could also strengthen the coherence of future justice strategies with other key strategies relevant to the rule of law, such as in the areas of law enforcement and anti-corruption. Further specification of future justice system strategies in dedicated action plans at the level of the MoJ would help define the timeframe, sequence and resources related to the implementation of the strategies and support regular monitoring and public reporting.

Furthermore, given the breadth of assistance to the justice system from international partners, continued systematic oversight by the CMU of ongoing support initiatives would help reduce duplication of efforts, support the sequencing of activities and improve the predictability of support for the sector. This is particularly relevant for implementing the Rule of Law Roadmap, whose scope requires concerted action by the sector and strategic use of ongoing support from international partners. Lastly, there is scope to enhance evidence-based monitoring and evaluation practices as they remain uneven across the sector, limiting the systematic use of data and legal needs evidence in reform planning. More integrated monitoring frameworks could also support stronger alignment between strategic objectives, budget allocations, implementation sequencing and assessment of reform outcomes.

More fundamentally, justice sector planning and performance assessment continue to focus primarily on institutional outputs and procedural indicators, and there is scope to strengthen attention to outcomes experienced by users. This includes greater use of evidence on legal needs, service accessibility, user experience, trust and the effectiveness of different justice pathways, including ADR. Robust planning, monitoring and evaluation require the systematic use of multiple sources of evidence, including administrative data, legal needs surveys, user feedback, service-level evaluations and relevant data from related sectors. More integrated and interoperable data systems could support stronger co-ordination, territorial planning, resource allocation and continuity across justice pathways and related public services. Advancing a people-centred justice system in line with the OECD Recommendation therefore requires complementing institutional performance measures with systematic and transparent use of evidence on legal needs and user outcomes throughout the reform cycle.

In view of the assessment, Ukraine may wish to consider the following recommendations:

1. Strengthen sectoral governance of the justice system. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Conducting an independent functional audit of judicial governance arrangements, as envisaged in the Rule of Law Roadmap, notably the HCJ, the HQCJ and the SJA, to map mandates, decision-making powers and accountability arrangements and identify opportunities to strengthen coherence, co-ordination and operational efficiency while preserving safeguards for independence. This could include consideration, in the longer term and subject to broad consultation and careful impact assessment, of whether selected governance functions may benefit from greater institutional streamlining

• Streamlining roles and decision-making powers across judicial governance bodies, through targeted legislative amendments informed by the functional audit, focusing on eliminating duplicated competences and clarifying accountability across these institutions

• Completing the establishment of specialised administrative courts by securing sustainable resourcing and staffing of the SDAC and the SACA to strengthen the administrative justice system and improve access to justice for complaints against executive authorities

• Clarifying the respective roles and co-ordination arrangements of the OPU, the CMU, the MoJ and other relevant institutions in developing and monitoring the implementation of justice reform strategies, ensuring coherence between the justice strategy and other key national reform and governance priorities

Supporting recommendations

• Clarifying institutional responsibilities, financing arrangements and governance frameworks for Community Justice Centres (CJCs) within the justice system

• Professionalising the CJU and the CoP by reviewing membership rules, introducing full-time membership where appropriate, ensuring sustainable budgets and improving transparency of selection and decision-making.

2. Advance strategic planning for the justice system. This could include:

Key recommendation

• Using the Rule of Law Roadmap as the basis for sequencing and monitoring reforms, ensuring ownership and managing risks related to budget allocations, until a new justice strategy is adopted, while enabling the development of a justice service map that links planning to legal needs, distribution of justice services and performance outcomes

Supporting recommendations

• Strengthening the link between strategic planning, performance management and justice outcomes by developing more integrated planning approaches across the justice system and aligning institutional priorities, resource allocation and service delivery with identified legal needs and justice problems. This could include greater use of data and evidence on legal needs to support planning of justice services, including courts, legal aid, ADR and community-based services

• Aligning future strategies for the development of the justice system and constitutional justice with strategies on law enforcement and prosecution, enforcement of court decisions, digitalisation and human rights to identify synergies and ensure co-ordinated strategic planning for the justice sector

• Sequencing justice sector reforms in line with institutional absorption capacity, operational continuity and available financial and human resources, including through periodic assessment of implementation burdens and sustainability risks.

3. Enhance justice sector co-ordination and co-operation. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Strengthening the co-operation between the MoJ and providers of justice and legal services at the community level through more systematic engagement of CSOs in outreach, legal empowerment and feedback on the services provided, including in areas directly affected by the war

• Tracking justice reform initiatives financed by international partners and the broader donor support for justice reforms by developing a dedicated justice sector dashboard, as a module of Ukraine’s broader aid-tracking and recovery co-ordination architecture. The dashboard could map projects and funding sources against justice sector priorities, EU accession commitments, responsible institutions, timelines and expected results. It would thus help to assess the extent to which justice sector reforms rely on external funding and provide guidance on dependencies and sustainability risks

Supporting recommendations

• Creating an Inter-Agency Data Governance Board, led by the MoJ and aligned with cross-government data governance initiatives, to develop the justice data dictionary for the sector, set interoperability and quality standards, oversee ethics, security and data-sharing protocols and align open justice initiatives

• Strengthening partnerships between the government and CSOs, including for pilot projects, to extend impact, strengthen legitimacy and test reforms before their implementation

• Assessing long-term financial sustainability and institutional ownership of externally supported justice reforms, including operational, staffing and maintenance implications beyond donor funding cycles.

4. Strengthen evidence-based planning and evaluation. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Strengthening evidence-based planning and evaluation across the justice sector through the systematic use and combination of data, such as administrative data, legal needs information, user feedback and service performance assessments to support better prioritisation, resource allocation and improvement of justice outcomes

• Monitoring user satisfaction with the justice system through surveys and feedback mechanisms across courts and other justice service providers

• Monitoring the accessibility, continuity and effectiveness of justice pathways, including referral systems, territorial accessibility, digital accessibility and user experiences across institutions and justice service providers

• Using people-centred and territorial data for strategic planning by systematically applying evidence on legal needs, accessibility, satisfaction and trust to inform long-term strategies, reforms of judicial and prosecution maps and resource allocation

Supporting recommendations

• Integrating cross-government evidence by combining justice, health and other social and administrative data to inform policy responses to the ongoing war, displacement and changing socio-economic conditions

• Developing interoperable and people-centred data systems capable of supporting integrated planning and co-ordination across justice, social, administrative and victim-support services

• Consolidating war-related justice data by systematically documenting war crimes and victim-related information to track cases and needs, supported by joint training for CSOs and justice professionals on data collection and verification.

1.2.2. Strengthening trust through the application of justice system values: integrity, independence, accountability and transparency

The Constitution of Ukraine provides a strong foundation for judicial independence. It sets out a clear separation of powers and guarantees that judges act independently, without undue pressure and in accordance with the law (VRU, 2020[2]). These safeguards are strengthened by provisions on judicial self‑governance and on the central role of the HCJ in ensuring judicial independence (VRU, 2020[2]). At the same time, ensuring judicial independence in practice requires balancing institutional autonomy with effective accountability, transparency and integrity safeguards, which operate as mutually reinforcing components of a broader justice value ecosystem.

In recent years, Ukraine has strengthened the governance structures responsible for upholding judicial independence by reorganising the HCJ and reinstating the HQCJ. Significant progress has also been made in advancing integrity-based selection procedures,1 supported by the Ethics Council for the HCJ, the Selection Commission for the HQCJ, the Advisory Group of Experts for the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU), the Public Council of International Experts (PCIE) for the High Anti-Corruption Court (HACC) and, since September 2025, the Expert Council which assists the HQCJ in determining whether candidates for the positions of judges of the SDAC and the SACA meet the criteria of integrity and professional competence. In a context of public distrust in parts of the judiciary, these arrangements have provided external assurance, supported merit- and integrity-based selection and helped restore credibility in key governance bodies.

At the same time, the long-term sustainability and national ownership of these models may require periodic assessment, including consideration of how to preserve institutional legitimacy, continuity of expertise and public confidence while progressively strengthening domestic ownership of integrity and selection mechanisms over time. The involvement of civil society through the Public Integrity Council (PIC) in assessing candidates for judicial positions before the HQCJ represents an important mechanism for promoting integrity and strengthening public oversight of selection procedures.

The establishment of the DIS within the HCJ Secretariat also represents an important step towards improving the management of disciplinary proceedings, including through reported progress in reducing case backlogs (HCJ, 2026[3]). At the operational level, the Unified Integrity Indicators approved by the HCJ in December 2024 further formalised criteria for assessing integrity and compliance with ethical standards, supporting more consistent integrity-based screening. At the same time, the credibility and effectiveness of disciplinary and integrity-review procedures continue to depend on fair procedures, clear reasoning and predictable application of standards, particularly in high-profile cases.

Transparency and openness of the justice system have also improved in recent years. Regular publication of decisions, standards, procedures and statistics related to judicial selection, evaluation and disciplinary proceedings contributes to enhanced public access to information on the operation of the justice system and implementation of priority reforms. Open justice initiatives and digitalisation reforms, in turn, continue to increase access to case law and procedural information, allowing easier navigation of justice pathways for the wider public. Further progress could include improving the accessibility, clarity and public understanding of governance, disciplinary and selection procedures and outcomes, as well as strengthening open-justice approaches tailored to the operational context of the justice sector.

Despite substantial reforms strengthening formal safeguards, public confidence in justice institutions remains fragile, reflecting persistent gaps between institutional design and implementation in practice. Survey evidence continues to point to perceptions of corruption, insufficient integrity safeguards and dependence on powerful actors within the judiciary, with approximately 69% of Ukrainians reporting distrust in the Supreme Court of Ukraine (SC) (DEJURE, 2025[4]). These findings suggest that strengthening formal safeguards alone may not be sufficient to improve public confidence where institutional practices are perceived as inconsistent, insufficiently transparent or unpredictable.

These concerns have intensified following high-profile corruption cases involving senior judicial officials, including the former President of the SC, reinforcing perceptions that integrity safeguards and accountability mechanisms within the judiciary are not always applied consistently or perceived as fully credible in practice (OECD, 2025[5]). They also illustrate tensions between key justice system values: measures aimed at strengthening accountability and integrity may not necessarily improve public confidence where enforcement is perceived as inconsistent or institutional decision-making lacks transparency, credibility or predictability.

Surveys among judges also point to continuing concerns regarding judicial independence. Statistics gathered by the HCJ indicate reported instances of interference with judges’ professional duties, underscoring the importance of complementing formal guarantees with effective implementation in practice (HCJ, 2023[6]; HCJ, 2023[7]; HCJ, 2025[8]; ENCJ, 2025[9]). Operational constraints, including insufficient security arrangements and financial unpredictability, may further affect the practical exercise of judicial independence. Risks may also arise within internal judicial hierarchies, particularly where governance arrangements, allocation of administrative powers or temporary transfers and reassignments are perceived as insufficiently transparent or predictable.

Given continuing risks to judicial integrity and public trust, formal safeguards should be complemented by credible, proportionate and consistently implemented accountability mechanisms. In this context, it is important to continue strengthening the human resources (HR) capacity of the DIS in view of the growing disciplinary caseload, while ensuring that cases are prioritised not only according to gravity but also with regard to applicable statutes of limitations (OECD, 2025[5]). This would support timely handling of cases and reduce the risk that proceedings expire before examination. More broadly, effective accountability depends not only on enforcement capacity, but also on procedural fairness, predictable application of standards and appropriate safeguards against misuse. Continued training on judicial independence, accountability and ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) could further support a stronger culture of integrity within the judiciary.

Furthermore, it is important to ensure that transfers and temporary reassignments of judges are implemented in accordance with the legal requirements, including effective appeal safeguards, to mitigate perceptions of undue pressure, including from internal judicial hierarchies. In the prosecution service, strengthening transparency and objectivity of case allocation and managerial procedures, including through random or automated case allocation mechanisms, could further reduce risks of undue influence and strengthen confidence in prosecutorial integrity. In hierarchical prosecution systems, transparent case allocation, predictable career management and objective appointment procedures are particularly important safeguards for distinguishing legitimate managerial supervision from risks of selective decision-making or improper pressure.

The OECD Integrity and Anti-Corruption Review of Ukraine includes additional recommendations for strengthening integrity across the judicial career cycle, including through integrity screening at recruitment and promotion, particularly for senior and high-risk positions, targeted ethics training and stronger management of conflict-of-interest situations (OECD, 2025[5]). The Unified Integrity Indicators could also be updated to allow the consideration of evidence from verifiable anonymous reports and follow-up reassessment of judges or candidates who have previously undergone integrity checks (OECD, 2025[5]).

Given existing integrity risks, it is also important to extend integrity-related reforms to the leadership of the SJA, including through objective criteria, open and competitive procedures and appropriate external scrutiny (OECD, 2025[5]). Integrity-review mechanisms should continue to balance effective scrutiny with procedural fairness, legal certainty and safeguards against undue influence.

Although transparency has improved, there remains scope to increase the visibility of follow-up actions, including outcomes of enforcement procedures and responses to reported interference with judicial activity, which could further strengthen accountability and institutional trust in practice. There is also scope to develop justice-sector-specific open data rules better tailored to the operational context of the justice system (OECD, 2025[5]). Strengthening strategic communication and information integrity capacity within justice institutions could further improve public understanding of judicial processes and resilience against misleading narratives affecting trust in the justice system.

In sum, several challenges continue to affect the practical functioning and legitimacy of the justice system. These include uneven implementation of safeguards for judicial independence, limited confidence in judicial governance bodies, disciplinary arrangements perceived as insufficiently predictable and operational pressures affecting courts and justice institutions. These factors may weaken the practical credibility of reforms and contribute to persistent trust deficits. Addressing them will require continued efforts to strengthen the consistency, predictability, transparency and credibility of justice sector governance arrangements in practice.

In view of the assessment, Ukraine may wish to consider the following recommendations:

1. Enhance the balance between independence and accountability. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Strengthening safeguards for internal judicial independence, including those relating to court leadership, distribution of administrative powers within courts and protection against any undue external or internal influence. This could include strengthening collegial governance arrangements and improving transparency of internal decision-making processes within courts

• Enhancing independent disciplinary enforcement by consolidating the DIS’s role, adopting clear professional standards for inspectors and factoring in the statute of limitations in prioritising cases, to reduce disciplinary case backlogs and enhance the culture of accountability

• Strengthening follow-up mechanisms and institutional co-ordination in response to reported interference with judicial decision-making, including to ensure greater transparency regarding enforcement outcomes

• Enhancing the implementation of safeguards for judicial transfers, including on appeal rights, thereby strengthening the protection of judicial independence in practice

• Strengthening the protection of judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, witnesses and court staff by adopting risk-based security protocols, mechanisms for reporting incidents and preventive measures against intimidation and interference, including in regions affected by the war

Supporting recommendations

• Implementing tailored training on judicial independence, accountability and ethical use of AI in line with international standards to ensure continuous training among members of the judiciary, prosecution service, legal community and other justice professions

• Clarifying disciplinary grounds for judges and prosecutors, including by ensuring more precise description of offences, to support effective accountability

• Strengthening procedural fairness, transparency and reasoning requirements across disciplinary and accountability procedures to reinforce institutional legitimacy, legal certainty and public trust while safeguarding judicial independence and prosecutorial autonomy.

2. Increase accountability and integrity in the justice system. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Applying integrity, transparency and merit-based safeguards consistently in the selection, promotion and tenure of judges, SC judges and court presidents, particularly for positions associated with a high risk of corruption

• Reviewing procedures for selection of the SJA’s leadership by introducing objective criteria and competitive, integrity‑ and merit‑based selection procedures that include an element of external scrutiny

• Amending Unified Integrity Indicators to allow consideration of evidence from verifiable anonymous whistleblower reports and to enable follow-up reassessments of prior integrity screenings, particularly in high-profile cases where new information may raise concerns about integrity

• Strengthening transparency and objectivity of prosecutorial case allocation and managerial reassignment procedures, including through automated allocation tools, where appropriate, to reduce the risk of undue influence and promote integrity in prosecutorial decision-making

• Strengthening procedural fairness, predictability and transparency in disciplinary, selection and evaluation procedures for judges and prosecutors, including for decisions overriding integrity-related opinions or recommendations to support institutional credibility and trust in justice sector governance

Supporting recommendations

• Assessing how to balance international participation and domestic ownership in auxiliary selection bodies, while preserving integrity safeguards, institutional credibility and continuity of expertise. This may include considering the scope, sequencing and institutional conditions for any gradual adjustment in the involvement of international experts, taking into account budgetary implications and ensuring that members of auxiliary selection bodies meet high standards of professionalism

• Expanding the use of transparent and merit-based procedures for appointments to managerial prosecutorial positions to strengthen predictability, professionalism and institutional confidence in prosecutorial governance.

3. Improve transparency and openness of the justice system. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Providing regular public updates on selection, evaluation, transfers and disciplinary procedures and outcomes for judges, to support transparency and public trust

• Strengthening institutional capacity related to information integrity and strategic communication within justice institutions, including by monitoring and responding to misleading narratives, improving public access to legal information, engaging with media and conducting proactive outreach to support public understanding and trust

Supporting recommendations

• Improving transparency and stakeholder engagement by providing clearer explanations of governance, disciplinary and selection decisions and expanding public access to relevant procedural information

• Expanding open-justice data governance to improve the availability, clarity and accessibility of information for the public, thereby strengthening transparency and accountability across the justice system

• Promoting procedurally fair and people-centred justice processes, including accessible communication, respectful treatment of court users and clear information on procedural rights and remedies

• Publishing periodic summaries and key indicators relating to disciplinary proceedings, follow-up actions, referrals and enforcement outcomes, while respecting confidentiality and procedural safeguards where applicable.

1.2.3. Enhancing capacity, performance and data-driven justice

Amid the war, justice institutions in Ukraine have maintained the continuity of reforms and delivery of justice services. According to available performance data, the institutional capacity of courts has largely been preserved. In several categories of cases, clearance rates and disposition times remain broadly in line with European standards, despite systemic challenges and increasing workloads. These results reflect adaptability, resilience and continued professional commitment across the judiciary. However, sustaining performance improvements over time will require stronger performance management, more balanced workload distribution, continued investment in institutional capacity and a broader understanding of justice performance that includes accessibility, quality and justice outcomes alongside efficiency indicators

While a performance management system is in place across the justice system, it could be improved to make it more consistent and effective. In particular, formal performance agreements between justice governance bodies and courts remain limited. Performance monitoring could also be better systematised, including through transparent self-evaluation frameworks, to support continuous improvement among judges and prosecutors. Further efforts would also be needed to strengthen the use of performance information for institutional planning, leadership appraisal and resource allocation, including through a more systematic combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators linked to efficiency, accessibility and quality of justice outcomes. Differences in case clearance rates and the risk of growing backlogs across courts highlight the need to fill staffing gaps, as well as advance co-ordinated measures to reduce backlog, strengthen court support functions and introduce more consistent caseflow management, including greater use of early case selection, structured case reallocation between courts, temporary judicial secondments and more flexible workload distribution across jurisdictions.

Constraints related to HR in the judiciary, with 2 293 vacant judicial positions or a 34.8% vacancy rate as of April 2026 (HQCJ, 2026[10]), driven by interruptions in the functioning of the HCJ and the HQCJ, along with resignations and retirements, translate into an increased workload for individual judges and undermine longer-lasting improvements in the performance of the judiciary. Within the prosecution service, statutory staffing limits continue to constrain the capacity to absorb fluctuations in caseloads and to conduct timely analysis of discontinuance patterns and charging timelines. Stabilising recruitment processes for judges and prioritising spending aimed at increasing productivity would help consolidate results across the court system in the medium term. In the area of constitutional justice, the introduction of statutory time limits and modernised internal case management practices would help reduce delays and strengthen legal certainty. Persistent staffing shortages may also affect institutional resilience, consistency of practice and the sustainability of broader justice sector reforms over time. More broadly, wartime staffing arrangements and emergency operational measures may require longer-term review to ensure that temporary adaptations progressively evolve into sustainable workforce and management models across the justice sector.

Non‑enforcement of judgments remains a systemic challenge in Ukraine. The 2020-2025 National Strategy for Solving the Problem of Non‑Enforcement of Court Decisions and the law adopted in December 2024, which introduced a mechanism for judicial oversight of enforcement (VRU, 2025[11]), sought to address some of the persistent gaps. The implementation of these instruments should now be evaluated to inform further reforms planned under the Rule of Law Roadmap. In parallel, strengthening the availability, public reporting and integration of data on enforcement outcomes and enhancing the capacity of bailiffs could help resolve several remaining obstacles. There is also an opportunity to improve safeguards for parties during enforcement proceedings and to expand the use of digital tools that support more efficient and simplified enforcement, including interoperable registers and automated processes. Given that enforcement of judgments is essential to effective access to justice and public confidence in the rule of law, improvements in enforcement systems should increasingly be considered as part of broader justice performance and service delivery objectives rather than solely as a technical enforcement aspect.

Across the justice system, certain quality assurance measures have been introduced to ensure more systematic implementation of structured models of excellence within management structures, evaluations, training and leadership appraisal for judges and prosecutors. More consistent application of quality standards and excellence frameworks would promote integrity while strengthening the links between professional development, evaluation, leadership appraisal and measurable performance criteria, as well as resource planning. At the same time, wider use of ADR methods of proven quality, supported by clear quality standards, appropriate procedural safeguards and targeted public awareness-raising activities, could reduce pressure on the courts and ensure timely and proportionate resolution of relevant disputes, freeing up resources for further digitalisation and improvements in service quality. Registers of mediators already exist through professional organisations, legal aid providers and other actors. However, consolidating and centralising information on mediators, mediation services and outcomes could further strengthen transparency and evidence-based policymaking.

To advance the digitalisation of the sector, reforms for the development of information technology (IT) solutions in the judiciary have been planned under the Roadmap (HCJ, 2024[12]). Although ongoing digitalisation initiatives have broadened the range of tools available for case management, remote participation and digital communication, supporting more proportionate dispute resolution, there is still room for improvement in the functionality of the Unified Judicial Information and Telecommunications System (UJITS), including to incorporate AI-enabled tools subject to ethical safeguards. In addition, ongoing work on the case management system for law enforcement services, SMEREKA, has the potential to improve efficiency within the criminal justice system and ensure interoperability across systems. Expanding digital justice systems will also require continued attention to cybersecurity, data governance, interoperability, ethical safeguards and institutional accountability for AI-enabled tools.

Further progress in filling data gaps would strengthen evidence-based planning, internal performance management and public transparency. This would also support more robust integration of statistical modules, improving the alignment of resources with justice outcomes and strategic priorities. More integrated and interoperable justice data systems could further strengthen co-ordinated service delivery, strategic planning and public understanding of justice system performance and reform progress.

In view of the assessment, Ukraine may wish to consider the following recommendations:

1. Strengthen the performance of the justice sector. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Strengthening performance management frameworks across courts and prosecution services through jointly agreed objectives, regular performance reviews and transparent monitoring of indicators such as clearance rates, disposition times and case backlogs, while safeguarding judicial independence, prosecutorial autonomy and the quality of justice outcomes

• Instituting active management of caseflows, including early case screening, to help courts maintain timeliness in civil and commercial cases and sustain improvements in processing of criminal cases at first-instance courts

• Reviewing and balancing workloads across jurisdictions through rules for case reallocation between courts and temporary secondments to ensure a more even distribution of cases and prevent local bottlenecks

• Strengthening the ADR system by introducing quality standards for mediators, clearly defined case categories for any mandatory elements and procedural safeguards to prevent misuse

• Expanding justice performance frameworks beyond efficiency indicators to include accessibility, user experience, continuity of services and justice outcomes, in line with requirements of a people-centred justice system

Supporting recommendations

• Introducing regular, transparent performance evaluation and self-evaluation frameworks for judges and prosecutors to promote continuous improvement for these professional groups

• Ensuring that court and prosecution self-assessments under excellence frameworks feed directly into annual performance reviews, resource planning and leadership appraisal

• Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of constitutional justice through strengthened case management and operational planning at the CCU.

2. Improve the human resource capacity of the justice sector. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Stabilising staffing pipelines for judges, prosecutors and court staff by investing in accelerated recruitment procedures and introducing more continuous and flexible recruitment procedures to reduce bottlenecks in the selection processes

• Reviewing statutory staffing caps for prosecutors in view of evidence of growing workload and considering adjusting ceilings where workloads can exceed sustainable levels

• Assessing the long-term sustainability of wartime staffing arrangements, including temporary reallocations and emergency measures, and progressively integrating priority workforce needs into stable institutional and financing frameworks

• Integrating territorial and accessibility considerations into workforce allocation, judicial remapping and staffing policies to address regional disparities, wartime displacement and evolving patterns of demand across regions

Supporting recommendations

• Continuing to modernise court support roles, including case managers and courtroom technologists, by strengthening their career frameworks and increasing the amount of judicial time spent on case merits

• Strengthening managerial and change-management capacity across judicial and prosecutorial institutions, including for crisis management, digital transformation and performance governance.

3. Enhance quality and enforcement of justice. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Addressing structural bottlenecks in enforcement of judgments by reviewing the allocation of responsibilities, incentives and safeguards applicable to public and private bailiffs, with a view to improving timeliness, fairness and recovery rates under wartime conditions

• Strengthening safeguards for protecting the rights of individuals in vulnerable situations during enforcement proceedings, in line with European guidance, supported by targeted training for bailiffs

Supporting recommendations

• Applying court excellence frameworks and piloting corresponding frameworks for prosecution services, within appraisal processes, supported by annual self‑assessments and peer reviews that are made publicly available

• Systematising the monitoring of enforcement proceedings by tracking timeliness, outcomes and compliance rates, and costs of civil execution, with dedicated dashboards disaggregated by party type and region

• Digitising execution tools by building interoperable registers with automated functionalities, including for asset discovery, and considering the establishment of an online platform for uncontested payment orders aligned with European good practice

• Integrating enforcement performance more systematically into broader justice sector planning and evaluation frameworks.

4. Advance data-driven justice. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Gathering routine statistics on enforcement of judgments and uptake and outcomes of ADR, particularly mediation, including through consolidation of existing mediator registers and improved centralised data collection

• Improving interoperable data exchanges, including the use of common justice-sector data dictionary, case identifiers and metadata standards to enable co-ordinated case handling across institutions and reduce fragmentation in the delivery of justice services

Supporting recommendations

• Strengthening governance and interoperability frameworks for digital justice systems, including safeguards relating to cybersecurity, interoperability, ethical use of AI, data protection and institutional accountability

• Publishing performance dashboards with indicators for courts and prosecution offices, while ensuring data protection, to support transparency and internal performance management

• Piloting analytical tools to examine prosecutorial decision-making, including factors linked to discontinuance and disposition time, to inform improvements in investigative quality and support targeted training.

1.2.4. Bolstering financial resilience and agility, infrastructure and operational continuity

Since 2014, and especially after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the justice sector has been operating under constant pressure. Justice institutions operate with limited and unpredictable resources, and investment levels remain below the OECD European average in proportional terms. Personnel costs account for a significant share of justice spending, leaving little room for the modernisation of infrastructure, digitalisation or innovations in services. Available estimates indicate that overall funding covers only part of the assessed needs across the judiciary. This increases dependence on external assistance and exposes modernisation initiatives, particularly in the area of IT, to funding fluctuations. Over time, reducing structural dependence on donor-funded systems and emergency financing arrangements will be important to strengthen the long-term sustainability and institutional ownership of justice reforms.

Budgeting practices in the justice sector remain largely expenditure-based and centrally driven, but could be strengthened by linking them more systematically to workload and enhancing structured consultation with judicial governance bodies and frontline institutions, while also factoring in people’s legal needs, justice problems and broader justice outcomes, including through pilot output-based funding approaches supported by regular monitoring. Short planning horizons also affect sustainability. The development of a multi-year performance-based budgeting framework, together with a coherent multi-year recovery and modernisation programme, could strengthen the sector’s capacity to manage risk, set investment priorities and gradually reduce its long-term dependence on external support.

Justice infrastructure has experienced significant damage and disruption, resulting in continued reliance on temporary arrangements and operational challenges, including those linked to damage to power and connectivity infrastructure. As of December 2025, damages to justice and public administration infrastructure exceed USD 459 million (World Bank et al., 2026[13]). The existing needs also provide an opportunity to rethink infrastructure rebuilding strategically, including through modern security, accessibility and safety standards and a comprehensive inventory of the state of justice infrastructure. They also point to the value of a multi-year rebuilding and modernisation programme that extends beyond replacement of infrastructure and considers more integrated and accessible service delivery models, including the co-location of justice services, particularly through the CJCs. This is particularly important in view of the need to ensure access to justice for people affected by displacement, disability or uncertain access to digital technologies. In this context, infrastructure planning and business continuity arrangements could better account for territorial accessibility, displacement patterns and the risk of prolonged disruption to justice services.

In view of the assessment, Ukraine may wish to consider the following recommendations:

1. Strengthen the financial resilience and agility of the justice system. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Establishing a Medium-Term Expenditure Framework for the justice sector, with a consolidated, implementation budget adjusted for risks and aligned with the external financing instruments and measures set out in the Rule of Law Roadmap

• Rebalancing expenditure within the justice sector towards IT by establishing protected programme lines and a dedicated budget code for justice modernisation to ensure predictable financing of reform priorities

• Assessing the long-term sustainability of donor-supported reforms, digital systems and operational arrangements

• Reviewing the composition and allocation of expenditures in the justice sector to better align funding with the legal and justice needs of people, including by strengthening support for upstream and people-centred services such as legal aid, mediation, digital access and integrated service delivery, while ensuring cost-effective use of resources across the justice system

Supporting recommendations

• Formalising participatory budget preparation with judicial governance bodies and frontline institutions

• Strengthening the links between budgeting, operational planning and people-centred service delivery objectives.

2. Enhance the infrastructure and operational continuity of the justice system. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Developing a multi-year justice reconstruction and modernisation programme, informed by the Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment, and considering the measures under the Rule of Law Roadmap, to prioritise investment based on need, risk and standards for service delivery

• Strengthening operational and cybersecurity resilience of justice infrastructure by investing in secure IT infrastructure, supported by strong cybersecurity governance

• Integrating the evidence on territorial accessibility, patterns of displacement and evolving service demand into infrastructure and reconstruction planning, particularly in underserved regions and regions directly affected by the war

Supporting recommendations

• Strengthening power and connectivity resilience at justice facilities by expanding backup power solutions and diversified connectivity options

• Standardising security, accessibility, safety and energy efficiency specifications for new buildings and refurbishment of existing infrastructure, reflecting modern building standards and accessibility requirements

• Promoting operational continuity planning across justice institutions, including contingency planning for emergencies, cyber incidents and prolonged disruption of infrastructure.

1.2.5. Improving people-centred service design and delivery

A people-centred justice system, as articulated in the OECD Recommendation [OECD/LEGAL/0498], places people’s legal needs and justice problems at the centre of the design and delivery of justice services. The Recommendation stresses the importance of grounding justice policies in robust evidence about people’s legal needs, their access to support and the ways they manage justiciable disputes in everyday life. With support from international partners, Ukraine has taken meaningful steps in this direction, including through studies on groups such as internally displaced persons (IDPs) (Kolokolova, 2024[14]) and veterans and their families (UNDP, 2024[15]). At the same time, evidence on legal needs, user experience and justice pathways remains uneven and fragmented across institutions and regions. Further strengthening this evidence base could help ensure that justice services are aligned with the diverse needs of people across the country and support more integrated territorial planning and delivery of justice services.

Ukraine has established foundations for a people-centred justice system, despite the exceptional pressure generated by the war. Notwithstanding these efforts, multiple legal needs and justice problems remain unresolved, particularly among IDPs, residents of areas directly affected by the war, veterans and their families, persons with disabilities and children. The war has intensified legal needs through displacement, loss of documentation and property, family separation and disruption of services, generating complex claims related to housing, employment, social benefits and restitution. Persistent barriers related to distance, costs, documentation requirements, information gaps and lack of access to digital tools continue to limit effective access to justice. This points to the need for a coherent national framework for addressing war-related justice needs alongside everyday legal needs. These challenges also highlight the importance of strengthening co-ordination and continuity across justice pathways, including between courts, legal aid, social services, victim-support mechanisms and community-based actors.

Furthermore, the justice system’s ability to respond to these needs, including in relation to child-friendly justice, remains uneven across institutions, regions and population groups. This unevenness reflects disparities in institutional capacity, resources, staffing levels and exposure to wartime disruption. The uneven territorial distribution of services and institutional capacities further underscores the need for a more integrated “justice services map” capable of supporting systematised planning, case referrals and resource allocation across the territory of Ukraine.

Over the past decade, reforms in the justice sector have expanded the use of digital tools in justice services, including through Diia, and enabled remote participation in hearings, which has been essential for maintaining access to justice for people affected by displacement. The adoption of the Mediation Law in 2021 has also created a legal basis for expanding non-court pathways to dispute resolution. Ongoing plans in the justice sector also consider strengthening the quality assurance and oversight of mediation services while preserving the self-regulatory character of the profession. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, courts, the prosecution service, the state legal aid system and CSOs, including through CJCs, have continued to deliver services, pilot one-stop and mobile models and develop practices aimed to support victims. These initiatives reflect growing attention to people’s needs under wartime conditions. Yet many of these initiatives continue to operate through fragmented or project-based arrangements, raising questions regarding longer-term interoperability, governance, sustainability and scalability. Extensive measures under the Rule of Law Roadmap aim to further strengthen digital justice services and increase the use of ADR.

At a systemic level, justice services are primarily organised around institutional mandates and procedures, and there is scope to orient service delivery more clearly around people’s justice problems and pathways. The development of a nationally defined entry point supported by a comprehensive mapping of justice services would support effective triage and referral, helping to reduce duplication, delays and unresolved legal needs. Information on justice pathways remains largely institution-centred and fragmented. Embedding more systematic mechanisms for user feedback, co-design and civil society participation in service development would support more responsive services. A more integrated approach to service governance and referral pathways could also support stronger co-ordination between ordinary justice services, victim-support mechanisms and transitional justice-related processes, helping users navigate overlapping pathways related to accountability, compensation, restitution and access to public services. In a war-affected context, a people-centred justice system may also support transitional justice objectives by helping individuals navigate overlapping pathways relating to accountability, compensation, restitution and access to public services.

Implementation capacity also shapes the pace of progress. Policies, strategies and digital tools could be more consistently supported by change-management processes, frontline training or structured feedback mechanisms. While digitalisation has expanded access in recent years, it has also exposed gaps in connectivity, documentation and digital literacy, particularly in rural and areas directly affected by the war, reinforcing the value of assisted and hybrid service models. Further efforts may also be needed to ensure that digitalisation initiatives are accompanied by safeguards addressing lack of access to digital tools and cybersecurity risks.

In view of the assessment, Ukraine may wish to consider the following recommendations:

1. Enhance people-centred purpose and culture in the justice system. This could include:

Key recommendation

• Embedding a people-centred purpose explicitly in the justice sector strategy and legislation, while using ‘access to justice’ as a consistent reference point for planning, designing and implementing justice services

Supporting recommendation

• Strengthening a public service approach to delivering justice services by aligning leadership commitments, training and professional standards, as well as performance indicators and appraisal criteria with fairness, responsiveness and dignity for justice users.

2. Strengthen the design and delivery of accessible and responsive legal and justice services. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Undertaking periodic legal needs and trust surveys, building on existing evidence, to better capture people’s legal needs, justice problems, pathways and experiences, and to inform the design of appropriate justice services

• Mapping legal and justice services, moving beyond judicial and prosecution maps to develop a national ‘justice services map’ covering courts, ADR, CJCs, legal aid, notaries, enforcement and specialised victim and transitional justice services and mechanisms

• Developing a territorial planning approach for justice services by assessing supply and demand for justice services, and aligning judicial remapping, legal aid, ADR, digital services, prosecution services and community-based support mechanisms with evolving legal needs, displacement patterns and accessibility gaps across regions, particularly in underserved areas and regions affected by the war

• Strengthening integrated referral pathways and interoperability across justice, legal aid, social, health and community-based services, including through common protocols, co-ordination mechanisms and user-centred service navigation approaches

• Improving accessibility and uptake of ADR mechanisms, including mediation, as part of broader people-centred justice pathways by actively promoting awareness of ADR among the public, strengthening the implementation of the Mediation Law with more coherent national co-ordination, quality assurance and data collection mechanisms

• Reducing cost barriers by reviewing court fees for minor claims and simplifying eligibility for secondary legal aid

Supporting recommendations

• Clarifying and strengthening the role of CJCs as main local entry points for justice services, responsible for gathering information, handling early triage and referral and assigning specialised pathways for victims and witnesses to the Victims and Witnesses’ Coordination Centre (VWCC), and more sustainable financing arrangements

• Strengthening governance and co-ordination across the broader justice service ecosystem, including clearer institutional responsibilities and stronger co-operation between justice institutions, local authorities, partnerships with CSOs relating to referrals, outreach, joint training and quality assurance, and international partners

• Expanding accessible, secure and user-friendly digital justice services, including legal aid and small claims assistance through e-kiosks, online platforms and applications such as Diia, while addressing risks for those without access to digital tools and accessibility barriers impacting populations directly affected by the war and individuals in vulnerable situations

• Strengthening the quality, independence and territorial coverage of the legal profession, including defence lawyers, minimum quality standards linked to legal aid contracting, continuous professional development on war-related claims and incentives to serve within remote areas and regions directly affected by the war

• Ensuring the effective implementation of the National Strategy for Protecting Children's Rights in the Justice System until 2028 by strengthening inter-institutional co-ordination, clarifying roles and responsibilities across justice and child protection actors, ensuring sustainable financing and embedding monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to track outcomes for children

• Strengthening the protection of fundamental rights through simplified procedures, clearer guidance and considering reforms to the constitutional complaint mechanism to allow challenges to alleged violations of rights beyond those arising solely from judicial decisions

• Reviewing civil, administrative and criminal procedural legislation from a people-centred perspective, with a view to simplifying procedures, strengthening safeguards for people in vulnerable situations and ensuring that digital and remote processes improve access to justice

• Strengthening co-ordination between ordinary justice services, victim-support mechanisms and transitional justice-related processes to support coherent pathways for people directly affected by the war

• Assessing the long-term sustainability and scalability of wartime justice innovations, including digital tools, outreach services, specialised victim support mechanisms, trauma-informed approaches and community-based justice initiatives introduced during the war.

3. Continue empowering people and communities to participate in justice design and delivery. This could include:

Key recommendations

• Implementing targeted public communication and outreach on available justice pathways and services by tailoring information to different populations and circumstances – with emphasis on legal aid and ADR, constitutional justice and victim support mechanisms – while clearly identifying entry, referral pathways and available support services

• Strengthening the participation of CSOs in policymaking and law-making by supporting the co-design of legal and justice services between service providers and users, drawing on people’s needs and lived experiences

Supporting recommendation

• Building further legal awareness and literacy through unified education platforms, community outreach, helplines, legal aid clinics and targeted mobile outreach for individuals and groups facing barriers related to displacement, lack of access to digital tools or limited trust in institutions.

1.3. About the OECD Justice Review of Ukraine

1.3.1. Approach and scope

The OECD is supporting Ukraine through the OECD Ukraine Country Programme (2023-2027). Under the Programme, the OECD Justice Review of Ukraine, implemented in close partnership with the MoJ and in co-ordination with international partners, aims to strengthen the justice system in Ukraine, contributing to a more resilient rule of law and increased public trust, including through improvements in governance, performance and the delivery of people-centred justice services. As such, the project is aligned with Ukraine’s commitments under the Rule of Law Roadmap and contributes to progress towards EU accession.

This Review constitutes a core component of this effort. It provides an assessment of the justice system in Ukraine, examining institutional governance, strategic planning and co-ordination; the application and interplay of justice values, notably independence, integrity, accountability and transparency; performance and operational capacity; as well as the design and delivery of justice services. The Review places particular emphasis on supporting Ukraine’s transition towards a people-centred justice system, grounded in evidence on legal needs and user experience, and adapted to conditions of war. To support implementation, the project also includes capacity-building activities and support for integrating recommendations into future justice sector strategies.

The methodology underpinning the Review combines analysis of legislation, policies and institutional materials with qualitative and quantitative data collection, including structured interviews and stakeholder consultations. It draws on inputs from the MoJ, other justice stakeholders, CSOs and professional associations in Ukraine, as well as comparative evidence and peer insights from OECD and EU Member States.

1.3.2. Presentation of the report

The OECD Justice Review of Ukraine is structured around key dimensions of justice system reform. It begins by setting out the broader context for justice reform in Ukraine, including its EU integration trajectory, the impact of Russia’s war of aggression and the importance of the rule of law as a foundation for democratic governance, economic development and public trust. It also introduces the concept of people-centred justice and highlights the importance of understanding people’s legal needs and experiences in shaping justice policies and services (Chapter 2).

Building on this context, the Review examines how the justice system is governed and steered. It analyses institutional arrangements, roles and responsibilities of key actors, as well as mechanisms for strategic planning and sectoral co-ordination. The chapter also reviews strategic reform frameworks, including the Rule of Law Roadmap, and considers how governance structures support coherence, prioritisation and better co-ordinated implementation of reforms (Chapter 3).

The Review then analyses the application of justice system values, focusing on how independence, integrity, accountability and transparency are embedded and balanced in institutional frameworks and practices across the justice system. It examines developments in integrity and disciplinary systems, as well as public perceptions and trust in justice institutions (Chapter 4).

Subsequently, the Review assesses the performance and operational capacity of the justice system. It analyses HR and financial resources, case flow management, enforcement of court decisions, justice infrastructure and the use of data and digital tools. Particular attention is given to the resilience of the system under wartime conditions and the role of data in supporting performance management and planning (Chapter 5).

Finally, the Review examines the design and delivery of people-centred justice services. It analyses how people access and navigate the justice system, the availability and integration of services across different providers, and the extent to which services respond to legal needs and justice problems in Ukraine, including those arising from war and displacement. The chapter also considers pathways for strengthening access to justice through more integrated, user-focused and evidence-based service delivery models (Chapter 6).

References

[4] DEJURE (2025), Nearly 69% of Ukrainians do not trust the Supreme Court, https://dejure.foundation/en/how-many-ukrainians-do-not-trust-the-supreme-court-in-2025/.

[9] ENCJ (2025), ENCJ Survey among judges on the Independence of the Judiciary, European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, https://pgwrk-websitemedia.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/production/pwk-web-encj2017-p/Report%20ENCJ%20Survey%20on%20Independence-compressed_0.pdf.

[3] HCJ (2026), High Council of Justice Presents Results of the First Year of the Disciplinary Inspectors Service, High Council of Justice, https://hcj.gov.ua/en/news/high-council-justice-presents-results-first-year-disciplinary-inspectors-service.

[8] HCJ (2025), From January to July 2025, the High Council of Justice considered 147 reports of interference in judges’ professional activities, High Council of Justice, https://hcj.gov.ua/en/news/january-july-2025-high-council-justice-considered-147-reports-interference-judges-professional.

[12] HCJ (2024), Roadmap for the Development of IT Solutions in the Judicial System, High Council of Justice, https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/dsa/normatyvno-pravova%20baza/N_534_2024_dodatok.pdf.

[7] HCJ (2023), Digest of events of the High Council of Justice for November 6-10, 2023, High Council of Justice, https://hcj.gov.ua/en/news/digest-events-high-council-justice-november-6-10-2023.

[6] HCJ (2023), During 2022, the HCJ considered 47 reports on interference with the activities of judges in the administration of justice, High Council of Justice, https://hcj.gov.ua/en/news/during-2022-hcj-considered-47-reports-interference-activities-judges-administration-justice.

[10] HQCJ (2026), Register of Judicial Positions, High Qualification Commission of Judges, https://vkksu.gov.ua/oblik.

[14] Kolokolova, M. (2024), Legal Needs of Displaced Persons in Ukraine and Abroad: Findings of the Sociological Research, https://legalclinics.in.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Legal-Needs-of-Displaced-Ukrainians.-ENG.-M.-Kolokolova.pdf.

[5] OECD (2025), OECD Integrity and Anti-Corruption Review of Ukraine, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7dbe965b-en.

[15] UNDP (2024), Survey on the Legal Needs of Veterans and Their Family Members, United Nations Development Programme, https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2025-02/veteransreporten-1-upd.pdf.

[11] VRU (2025), Law of Ukraine on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine regarding the Improvement of Provisions on Judicial Control over the Enforcement of Court Decisions (No. 4094-IX), Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4094-ix#Text.

[1] VRU (2025), Law of Ukraine on the Establishment of the Specialised District Administrative Court and the Specialised Administrative Court of Appeal (No. 4602-IX), Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4602-ix#Text.

[2] VRU (2020), The Constitution of Ukraine, Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/main/en/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text.

[13] World Bank et al. (2026), Ukraine: Fifth Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA5): Main Report, February 2022–December 2025, United Nations Development Programme, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099022026094036395/pdf/P514499-22f93f3a-4278-42bc-b907-db9553d12069.pdf.

Note

← 1.  In comparative literature, such integrity screening and review mechanisms are sometimes characterised as forms of judicial vetting, particularly where they involve extraordinary assessments of ethics, integrity and professional conduct aimed at restoring public trust in the judiciary.