The Higher Administrative Court of Ukraine’s (HACU) practice in disputes concerning issues of exercising Laws of Ukraine on Restoring Confidence in Judiciary and on Government Cleansing is analyzed in this paper. The main problem of using lustration measures for the HACU is their relevance (or irrelevance) to the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. Taking this moment into account HACU used to suspend proceedings on such cases. This position is under critique in the paper. Considering lustration to be a form of legal liability HACU should state it in its judgments, but not throw responsibility onto the Constitutional Court and de facto deprive plaintiffs of judicial protection. At the same time HACU seems to misunderstand nature of lustration that is not a form of legal liability. The author also pays attention to claiming against decisions of applying lustration measures. The institute of actio popularis claim in this category of cases is argued to increase public control and efficiency of lustration.