Asset declarations for former officials, remuneration for judges, and new bails for criminal cases

During the first week of the new session, MPs has submitted 43 draft bills. The most important ones concern monitoring of spendings of Ukrainian officials on medical treatment abroad, an attempt to regulate the funding of the judiciary, and prevention of the abuse of bailing out by persons accused or suspected of criminal offenses.

To force former officials to report their spendings on medical treatment abroad (6008)

Sponsor: Oleksandr Dubinsky.

Who is affected: the President, MPs, ministers, civil servants, judges, law enforcement employees, former presidents, MPs, Prime Ministers, and ministers.

Summary of the bill:

• the bill proposes to apply some provisions of the law on corruption prevention to former presidents, MPs, Prime Ministers, and ministers
• the persons in question will have to submit asset declarations only in cases when they or their families are receiving medical treatment abroad. Only spendings on such treatment will be mandatory for reporting in their declarations.

What is wrong:

• the bill discredits asset declarations as a tool of public control over officials by making it a penalty for civil servants and their families
• additional ungrounded restrictions for officials will demotivate potential candidates for public service.

To define a standard rate of remuneration for judges (5882)

Co-sponsors: a group of MPs from Servant of the People faction with Halyna Tretiakova as a first signatory, Anna Skorohod (an MP from For the Future group).

Summary of the bill:

• defines a fixed official salary for a judge:
  • of local court — ₴71,790 (instead of 30 living salaries)
  • of appeal court or higher specialized court — ₴119,650 (instead of 50 living salaries)
  • of the Supreme Court — ₴179,475 (instead of 135 living salaries)
• indexation of the fixed official salaries for judges will be conducted annually starting from March 1, 2025.

Why this is important: a judge cannot have any other paid job, work as a business person or lawyer, or occupy any paid position. A judge can get remuneration only from the government budget or from scientific, pedagogical, or creative work.

What is wrong:

• the bill reduces the guarantees of judicial independence:
  • remuneration proposed by the bill does not subtract inflation
  • as of now, the remuneration is defined with reference to a living salary and judges get raises without additional changes to the law
• the bill proposes the indexation of the fixed official salaries that will be legally unfeasible. The only way to give a raise to judges will be to change the law and thus judges will become dependent on the Verkhovna Rada and the President. Thus, the bill is unconstitutional since it violates the principle of judicial independence.

What’s next: the Constitutional Court has already made dozens of decisions that ruled unconstitutional the attempts to reduce the guarantees of judicial independence. The judges of the CCU make sure that if the state has defined some level of financial guarantees for judges, this level can never be lowered. If the draft bill is adopted, the Constitutional Court will rule it unconstitutional.

To change the approach to defining bails for criminal proceedings (5892)

Co-sponsors: a group of thirteen MPs from Servant of the People faction and Trust group with Vladlen Nekliudov as the first signatory.

Who is affected: persons suspected or accused of committing criminal offenses and felonies, prosecutors, and courts.

Summary of the bill:

• defines bails for cases of criminal offenses and felonies: no less than the amount of loss or size of the damage
• cuts the deadline for submitting a bail from 5 to 3 days
• excludes the provision about mandatory consent that the bail could be confiscated based on the results of the court’s decision from a person that deposits the bail.

What is wrong:

• the amount required for bail can become impossible to pay for accused and suspected persons: the size of bail has to be significant but still manageable. If the size will be too high, judges will almost always resort to detention
• the bill makes it much harder for suspected and accused persons to use the opportunity to bail out.