The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the interaction between civil society and the judiciary in Ukraine. The author examines the preconditions for public influence on the judiciary: the principle of citizen participation in the administration of justice, the independence of the judiciary, and the integrity of judges. The article explores such a form of citizen participation in the administration of justice as public oversight of the judiciary. According to the author, public oversight of the judiciary is an indirect, “soft” form of public influence on courts and judges. It should be regarded as an interaction between civil society and state authorities through the establishment of stable and effective mechanisms for fair decision-making and communication. The exercise of such oversight within the functioning of the judiciary involves the public’s evaluation of how courts (and judges) carry out their duties and the assessment of their overall effectiveness. The author argues that public oversight of the judiciary has its legal boundaries. Its subject matter may include: the integrity and professional ethics of judges, the accuracy of information provided by judges in their declarations, the implementation of the principle of transparency in the administration of justice, the actual independence of courts and judges hearing specific cases from any external influence, as well as the procedure for selecting judicial candidates and their compliance with moral and ethical standards. The article devotes considerable attention to the activities of the Public Integrity Councils (PIC), whose purpose is to assist the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine in determining whether a judge (or judicial candidate) meets the criteria of professional ethics and integrity for the purposes of qualification assessment. The focus is placed on the positive experience of the PIC, its shortcomings, and future prospects. Attention is also given to foreign practices of public oversight of the judiciary. The author argues that judicial integrity and ethical conduct have justifiably become the subject of public oversight and monitoring. These aspects do not violate the principle of judicial independence; on the contrary, they provide the judiciary with additional legitimacy. At the same time, both at the legislative level and in its application, a balance must be maintained between the constitutional right of citizens to participate in the administration of justice and the judge’s duty to render independent, impartial, and effective judicial decisions. 

Authored books

1. Ovcharenko O, Sukhova A, Hlomb M, Doslidzhennia katehorii “dobrochesnist” u konteksti doboru ta kvalifikatsiinoho otsiniuvannia suddiv: Analitychnyi zvit (USAID 2024) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

2. Buromenskyi M, Serdiuk O, ‘Dobir suddiv vyshchoi instantsii: analiz inozemnoho dosvidu’ [2016] 4 Visnyk Vyshchoi kvalifikatsiinoi komisii suddiv Ukrainy 42–45 (in Ukrainian). 3. Kravchuk V, ‘Hromadskyi kontrol sudovoi vlady yak sposib vidnovlennia doviry suspilstva do sudiv ta suddiv’ [2016] 3(7) Aktualni problemy pravoznavstva 11 (in Ukrainian).

4. Mochulska M, ‘Sudova vlada ta hromadskist: vzaiemodiia v umovakh konstytutsiinoi reformy pravosuddia v Ukraini’ [2018] 3 Ukrainskyi chasopys konstytutsiinoho prava 39–46 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

5. Stashkiv N, ‘Pryntsyp povahy do sudu: teoretyko-pravove doslidzhennia’ (dys dokt f-fii v haluzi prava 2021) (in Ukrainian).

Websites

6. Hryshchenko K, ‘Zaluchennia hromadskosti do orhaniv suddivskoho vriaduvannia’ (22.09.2020) (accessed 27.06.2025) (in Ukrainian).

7. Zvit za rezultatamy doslidzhennia “Stavlennia hromadian Ukrainy do sudovoi systemy” (Razumkov tsentr) (accessed 27.06.2025) (in Ukrainian).

8. Shyba I, Malyshev B, Polisi-brif “Vzaiemodiia hromadskosti ta vlady u protsesi doboru ta otsiniuvanni sudovoi vlady: poshuk efektyvnoi modeli” (29.05.2018) (accessed 27.06.2025) (in Ukrainian).