Judiciary reform: public opinion poll, judges and experts surveys

Judiciary reform: public opinion poll, judges and experts surveys

Judiciary reform: public opinion of the population of Ukraine, December 2014

Public opinion poll was conducted by Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation in cooperation with Razumkov Center Sociology Service on December 19-24, 2014. 2008 respondents aged 18 and older were polled in all regions of Ukraine, except for AR Crimea. Theoretical sampling error – 2.3%. The poll was conducted upon request of the Center for political and legal reforms in frames of the project “Overcoming informal practices in judiciary system” funded by MATRA program of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the project “Ukraine-EU Speedometer: Constitutional and Judicial Reforms” funded by the EU.

• The necessity to implement the judiciary reform in Ukraine is supported by the majority of Ukrainian citizens, at that 46% consider that this reform is one of the most urgent tasks and should start as soon as possible. Another 34% of respondents also observed the necessity to reform judiciary system, but stated that there are tasks of the greater importance and the judiciary reform can be delayed for some time. Only 1.5% of Ukrainians do not see a special urgency in reforming the judiciary branch in Ukraine.
• Partial and careful changes in judiciary system as a way of its reformation are supported by only 8% of Ukrainians and only 1% of respondents think that there is no need to change anything. The majority of the society thinks that the judiciary system should be thoroughly changed in frames of the reform. At that 46% consider that these changes should be of a radical character and mean fundamental changes of almost everything in existing system of judicial procedures and another 34% think that the changes should be significant, but stress that it’s impossible to change everything.
• Ukrainian courts as a social institutions still have negative balance of trust-distrust in the society (-71%). Thus, only 9% of respondents have trust to courts and 81% of Ukrainians show their distrust to courts. If we compare these data to the results of 2013 poll, we’ll see that the level of trust towards the courts in Ukrainian society has decreased (from 19% to 9%), at the same time the level of distrust has increased (from 71% up to 81%).
• The absolute majority of the population thinks that the following negative phenomena exist in Ukrainian courts: corruption (94%), judges depending on politicians (80.5%) and oligarchs (80%), adoption of paid-for decisions (77%), mutual cover-up in the system of justice (73%), low level of morality of the majority of judges (66%), incomprehensibility and closedness of judicial processes for the common man (52%), complicated character of judiciary system (50.5%).
• The population considers that main factor that negatively influences the level of trust towards courts in Ukraine is wide-spread corruption in courts (74%). Other factors were named not that often.
• The most popular offer regarding the changes in judiciary system was an idea to dismiss a part of judicial manpower to conduct investigations – supported by 40% of the population. There were also offers to introduce property liability for judges for illegal decisions (31%) and deprivation of immunity and privileges (30%).
• The appointment of judges should be a competence of the specially created independent from legislative and executive powers body and its members would be judges and representatives of the public – this idea is supported by 43% of Ukrainians. The second place is possessed by the idea of transformation of the judge’s position to elected position and election of judges by citizens during elections (28%). Appointments of judges by the President, Verkhovna Rada (the Parliament) or Supreme Court are supported equally by the insignificant part of the Ukrainian society (4-5%).
• The idea of appointing judges for life to their positions does not find support in the Ukrainian society – only 2% of the population support it. Instead, the citizens consider that judges should be appointed for the term up to 5 years (41%) or for the term up to 1 year and later in case of the absence of violations and complaints – up to pension age (30%).
• The most effective methods of the public control over the courts, as per population, are: filing complaints against judges to disciplinary bodies (37%), publishing the information about behavior and wellbeing of judges and members of their families in mass-media (35%), appealing to law enforcement agencies on crimes committed by judges (31%) and elections of judges and the possibility of their recall from positions by voters (30%).

Poll results

1. In your opinion how urgent is the judiciary reform today?

2. If the judiciary reform will be implemented, how deep should changes be?     

3. I will name certain social institutions. To what extent do you trust them?

4.1 Which of the phenomena listed below exist in Ukrainian judiciary system?

4.2 Which of the phenomena listed below have the most negative influence on trust to courts in Ukraine?

5. Which of the offers regarding the judiciary system would you support first of all?

6. Who, to your opinion, should appoint judges to their positions?

7. What, to your opinion, should be the term of appointing judges to their positions?

8. How, to your opinion, can the public control courts more effectively?

4. Dynamics of trust to courts
I will name certain social institutions. To what extent do you trust them?
Courts

Constitutional Court of Ukraine

Judiciary reform: opinion of judges, December 2014 – January 2015

The survey among the representatives of the judiciary branch was conducted from December 8, 2014 till January 27, 2015. 1066 judges and 26 workers of appeal courts were polled. Judges from Volyn, Vynnytsya, Zhytomyr, Zakarpatie, Zaporizhzhya, Ivano-Frankivsk, Kirovograd, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Poltava, Rivne, Ternopil, Kharkiv, Kherson, Cherkasy, Chernivtsy, Chernigiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Lviv, Sumy provinces (oblasts) and the city of Kyiv. The survey reached out to Appeal, Commercial, County Administrative, and Appeal Administrative courts. The survey was conducted upon request of the Center for political and legal reforms in frames of the project “Overcoming informal practices in judiciary system” funded by MATRA program of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the project “Ukraine-EU Speedometer: Constitutional and Judicial Reforms” funded by the EU.

• Only 12% of polled judges and court workers consider that the judiciary reform in Ukraine is one of the most urgent tasks today. The majority of respondents (51%) consider that this reform should be implemented, but, to their mind, more urgent tasks exist today. Another 16% of polled judges think that this reform is not timed now and it can be postponed, and 19% consider that there is no urgent need to implement the judiciary reform at all.
• Regarding the graveness of changes that judiciary system should undergo during the reform, the relative majority of respondents is advocating partial and careful changes (39%). The second place is possessed by the scenario of serious changes without changing the whole system (30%). Along with this almost the quarter of polled representatives of the judiciary manpower consider that there is no necessity to introduce changes into the judiciary system, probably there is a need to improve something selectively.
• Only 9.5% of representatives of judiciary manpower are convinced in real independence of the system of justice in Ukraine. The majority of respondents (52.5%) acknowledge that the cases of the influence on judges still take place sometimes. 20% of respondents state that such cases are quite frequent and another 17% admit that actually the whole judiciary system is dependent.
• The strongest influence on judges aimed at necessary decisions adoption, as per the representatives of courts belongs, on one hand, to journalists and public (50%) and, on the other hand, to politicians (not officials) – 48% of respondents admitted that influence. Accordingly, these results show that even in conditions of the current judiciary system, the pressure and influence of non-political and non-governmental actors is equally effective as non-formal political influence.
• The majority of judges consider the possibility of prosecution (58%) to be the most wide-spread and working way of influencing the judge in the proceedings. The second place belongs to the public pressure by means of demonstrations and protests near the court building (46%). Other ways of influence on judges were named by respondents not that often: the request by influential people – 22%; bribery – 10.5%; the request by court management – 8%. At that the judges and court workers were making such evaluations of the efficiency of different methods of influence based on their own experience (43%) or the experience of their acquaintances (38%).
• After the government of Ukraine was replaced the mechanisms of influence remained the same as earlier – only people who use them have changed. 46% of respondents share this opinion. Another 29% state that the number of mechanisms has increased comparing to previous government, and only 14% of respondents think that the number of channels of pressure on judges has decreased.
• The majority of polled court representatives and judges evaluate the consistency of judges in the proceedings as quite high. Thus, 51% of respondents think that judges are mainly consistent not to fall for influences and temptation, another 23% state that almost all judges are consistent and stick to the law.
• The question if bribery exists in Ukrainian courts was left by judges without answer: 51% were not able to shape an answer, another 4% refused to provide the answer. At that 41% of respondents provided their answers regarding the bribery based on their assumptions.
• Judges almost never violate the procedural law – 49% of respondents have chosen this option. Another 27% stated that the judge can violate procedural law in certain cases. 67% of respondents think that judges violate the norms of procedural law due to the irrational character of Ukrainian laws; 9% of respondents consider that these violations appear because of the legal ignorance, and only 5.5% of respondents mentioned that judges can violate the law to simplify their life.
• The question on objectiveness of candidates selection to appoint as judges for the first time, as well as the question on non-biased character of selection of judges to be transferred to the courts of the higher level were left without answers. Thus in both cases 40% of respondents could not provide an answer, another 3-4% of respondents completely refused to provide an answer. It is quite logical that 36.5% of respondents left the question on the reasons of biased selection of the candidates for their first posts in the courts without answer, 10% more refused to provide answers.
• The idea of purging (lustration) does not find support among judges and court workers: 67% of respondents consider that lustration is not necessary and there is a need to create normal conditions for judges instead. Among those who after all expressed their support for certain methods of purging the judicial manpower, the majority (18%) supported lustration by means of judges check-ups by Temporary Special Commission with further approval of conclusions in the High Council of Justice of Ukraine (in accordance with the Law of Ukraine On restoration of trust to judiciary branch of power).
• 72.5% of judges and court workers consider that the main problem that should be solved by judiciary reform in the first place is to remove the influence of the President and Verkhovna Rada on the courts. The problem #2 is lawsuits’ burdensomeness – bureaucratization, expensiveness and excessive formalization of the process. 

Poll results

1. To your opinion how urgent is the judiciary reform today?  

2. If you think that judiciary reform is necessary, how deep should changes be?

3. Do you consider judiciary system in Ukraine to be independent?

4. If you think that judiciary system in Ukraine is not completely independent, who has the biggest influence on judges aimed at adopting the necessary decision? (you can mark several answers)

4-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

5. To your opinion, which of mentioned below is the most spread and at the same time the most effective method of influence on the judge during the lawsuit? (you can mark several answers)

5-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

6. To your opinion, did the mechanisms of influence on judges change after the change of the government?

6-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

7. How, to your opinion, is the distribution of cases in court taking place:

7-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)  

8. To your opinion, to what extent judges in Ukraine can consistently oppose influences and temptations during the lawsuits proceedings:

8-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)  

9. To what extent, to your opinion, are the facts of bribery wide-spread in courts?

9-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)  

10. How often do judges violate the procedural law during the lawsuits:

10-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

11. What, to your opinion, is a main reason for judges’ violation of procedural law:

11-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)  

12. Was the selection of judges to be appointed for the first time to this position objective lately:

12-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)  

13. Was the selection of judges to be transferred to the courts of higher level objective lately:

13-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)  

14. If the selection of judges for the first time was non-objective, why do you think it happened?

14-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)  

15. What type of renewal (lustration) do you support? (you can mark several answers):

16. Which three problems should be solved first of all by the judiciary reform? (you can mark up to three answers):

Judiciary reform: experts’ opinion

Expert survey was conducted by Ilko Kucheriv Democratic Initiatives Foundation on December 8-26, 2014. 27 experts participated in the poll (attorneys, human rights activists, public figures, lawyers who are not attorneys or judges). The survey was conducted upon request of the Center for political and legal reforms in frames of the project “Overcoming informal practices in judiciary system” funded by MATRA program of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the project “Ukraine-EU Speedometer: Constitutional and Judicial Reforms” funded by the EU.

• The absolute majority of polled experts consider the judiciary reform to be one of the most urgent and actual tasks. None of the polled attorneys, human rights activists or lawyers stated that the reform can be postponed or that it was not necessary at all. At that the majority of experts agreed that the judiciary system should undergo serious changes up to radical innovations, which would completely change the existing system.
• Polled experts do not believe in non-biased character and independence of the judicial system in Ukraine and consider that the whole judiciary system in Ukraine is dependent – completely or partially, in the form of frequent cases of influence on judges. None of the polled experts was able to say that Ukrainian judiciary system was really independent and non-biased.
• As per experts the biggest influence on judges aimed at the adoption of necessary decisions is made by court heads. The next on intensiveness of pressure are oligarchs and businessmen, local officials, prosecutors, governmental officials and lawsuits participants. At that these conclusions are made by experts based on their own experience or the experience of their acquaintances.
• The most wide-spread and the most effective ways to influence a judge during the lawsuit proceedings are: the request by immediate management of the court, bribe to the judge or the request by influential people. The absolute majority of experts have personally encountered such mechanisms of influence on judges. At that as it appeared the change of the government in Ukraine in 2014 did not lead to the changes in the ways of influencing judges – the mechanisms remained the same only the people using them have changed.
• The experts could not say that the distribution of the cases in the courts was fair and stated that in reality the process is being controlled by the computer, but from time to time this process is being interfered so that the case would go to the certain judge.
• Experts did not have consensus regarding the level of consistency of judges against the external influence during lawsuits proceedings. Thus, the part of respondents considers that judges are mainly non-consistent towards influences and temptations during lawsuits proceedings, and the other part of experts thinks that each judge in certain cases can be consistent and in other situation can not oppose influence.
• Bribery is a regular practice in Ukrainian courts. In particular, the majority of experts stressed the widespread character of the practice of adoption of court decisions in exchange for money.
• The majority of experts pointed out frequent violations of the norms of procedural law during the lawsuits proceedings by judges; the experts consider that the reason for these violations by judges is a wish to simplify their lives.
• The selection of the candidates for their first appointment to the position of a judge is mainly conducted in a biased manner (13 experts). The main reasons for this are protection of certain people by members of commissions as well as bribery of the members of qualification commissions.
• The evaluation of the objectiveness of judges selection for their transfer to the higher levels is also negative – the experts consider that this process can also be biased and unfair.
• There is a possibility to conduct purging (lustration) of the judiciary manpower by means of creation of the new judiciary system through changes to the Constitution and selection of the new candidates to all positions of judges. The second best mechanism by experts is a way of dismissal of judges based on the verification of their property declarations, which is envisaged by the recently adopted law on lustration. Besides that the part of experts supports purging based on the Law of Ukraine On restoration of trust to judiciary branch of power as well as by means of the automatic dismissal of the judge for adopting certain decisions (based of the Law of Ukraine On lustration).
• As per experts the most urgent problems that should be solved by judiciary reform are corruption and the influence of other branches and authorities on courts.  

Poll results

1. To your opinion how urgent is the judiciary reform today? 

2. If you think that judiciary reform is necessary, how deep should changes be?

3. Do you consider judiciary system in Ukraine to be independent?

4. If you think that judiciary system in Ukraine is not completely independent, who has the biggest influence on judges aimed at adopting the necessary decision? (you can mark several answers)

4-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

5. To your opinion, which of mentioned below is the most spread and at the same time the most effective method of influence on the judge during the lawsuit? (you can mark several answers)  

5-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

6. To your opinion, did the mechanisms of influence on judges change after the change of the government?

6-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

7. How, to your opinion, is the distribution of cases in court taking place:

7-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

8. To your opinion, to what extent judges in Ukraine can consistently oppose influences and temptations during the lawsuits proceedings:

8-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

9. To what extent, to your opinion, are the facts of bribery wide-spread in courts?

9-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

10. How often do judges violate the procedural law during the lawsuits:

10-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

11. What, to your opinion, is a main reason for judges’ violation of procedural law:

11-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

12. Was the selection of judges to be appointed for the first time to this position objective lately:

12-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

13. Was the selection of judges to be transferred to the courts of higher level objective lately:

13-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

14. If the selection of judges for the first time was non-objective, why do you think it happened?  

14-а. How did you get this information? (you can mark several answers)

15. What type of renewal (lustration) do you support? (you can mark several answers):

16. Which three problems should be solved first of all by the judiciary reform? (you can mark up to three answers):

17. Please, specify your occupation