The article examines the temporal aspect of the category of integrity and the problem of determining time limits for its assessment in procedures for the selection of judges, members of judicial governance bodies, and other public officials. The relevance of the topic is caused by the absence of clear temporal limits for integrity assessment in national legislation, which creates risks of inconsistent law enforcement, excessive discretion of assessment bodies, and violations of the principles of legal certainty and reasonableness. This issue becomes especially important due to the increasing role of integrity as one of the key prerequisites for access to public office. The purpose of the article is to study the relationship between the category of integrity and the factor of time, as well as to substantiate the necessity of applying the principle of reasonableness when determining the limits of integrity assessment. The article analyzes the evolution of the concept of integrity from the Roman concept of integritas to the modern anti-corruption understanding. It is established that integrity assessment cannot be carried out outside the specific historical context of social development, since changes in social conditions, technology, and legal standards directly affect behavioral criteria. The article substantiates that the complete absence of temporal limits for integrity assessment may lead to disproportionate interference in a person’s professional sphere, while excessively restrictive limits may undermine the anti-corruption function of integrity. It is concluded that a balanced approach to determining temporal limits for integrity assessment should be developed in accordance with the principles of legal certainty, fairness, and reasonableness.

Authored books

1. Dworkin R, Law’s Empire (Harvard University Press 1986).

2. Prymak V, Vidshkoduvannia moralnoi shkody na zasadakh spravedlyvosti, rozumnosti y dobrosovisnosti (Yurinkom Inter 2014) (in Ukrainian).

3. Shulzhenko F, Sharkova I, Haidulin O, Moralno-pravovi pryntsypy dobrochesnosti ta dobrosovisnosti: heneza ta paradyhma suchasnoi retseptsii (Yurinkom Inter 2024) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

4. Luts V, ‘Metodolohichne znachennia katehorii “strok” i “termin” u tsyvilnomu pravi Ukrainy’ [2018] 31 Chasopys tsyvilistyky 80–87 (in Ukrainian).

5. Makhinchuk V, ‘Dobrochesnist yak novitnii faktor otsiniuvannia kandydativ na posadu suddiv Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy’ [2025] 1(50) Slovo Natsionalnoi shkoly suddiv Ukrainy 30–44 https://doi.org/10.37566/2707-6849-2025-1(50)-2 (in Ukrainian).

Conference papers

6. Sharkova I, ‘Rymsko-pravova kontseptsiia dobrochesnosti (integritas): aktualizatsiia v suchasnii Ukraini’, in Ye Kharytonov (ed), Rymske pravo i suchasnist: tsyvilne pravo v umovakh viiny: materialy Vseukrainskoi naukovoi konferentsii (Odesa, 24 travnia 2022 r.) (Feniks 2022) 117–120 (in Ukrainian).

Websites

7. Hoppe T, ‘Money Talks: The ECtHR is Getting Rid of Corrupt Judges’ (VerfBlog, 5 March 2021) (accessed 15.05.2026).

8. Technical Guide to the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNODC 2009) (accessed 20.05.2026).

9. Nykolenko O, Iak internet postupovo ziavliavsia v Ukraini ta zminyv nas (Suspilne, 4 bereznia 2020) (accessed 18.05.2026) (in Ukrainian).

10. Zhernakov M, ‘Venetsiika shchodo KSU: potribna seriozna reforma, suddiv maiut vybyraty mizhnarodni eksperty i hromadskist’ (Fundatsiia DEJURE, 11.12.2020) accessed 15 May 2026 (in Ukrainian).