The CJU has endorsed guarantees of the legal profession’s independence and has proposed a meeting with the BCU

The Council of Judges of Ukraine has responded to a letter from the Bar Council of Ukraine regarding the inadmissibility of the High Council of Justice granting immunity to a member of the High Council of Justice — a privilege not provided for by law — as well as regarding violations of constitutional guarantees of the independence of the legal profession and attorney-client privilege.

The relevant letter from the Council of Judges of Ukraine dated April 15, 2026, No. RS-251/26, was received by the secretariat of the Ukrainian National Bar Association.

As a reminder, the basis for this institutional discussion was the circumstances surrounding the participation of advocate Oleksandr Vikhrov in the competitive selection process for the position of judge. During the interview at the High Council of Justice, rapporteur Roman Maselko, who also holds the status of an advocate, demanded that the candidate provide documents and video recordings from his legal file obtained in the course of providing legal assistance, as well as an explanation regarding the agreement with the client. In this regard, the BCU stated that a member of the High Council of Justice had interfered in legal practice and filed official appeals and complaints. In response, the High Council of Justice adopted a decision to take measures to ensure the independence of a High Council of Justice member in connection with the actions of bar self-governing bodies. The BCU described this decision as one that narrows the constitutional guarantees of the independence of advocacy and effectively creates immunity not provided for by law for a High Council of Justice member who retains the status of an advocate.

The Council of Judges of Ukraine stated that it had taken the information into account and fully supports the need for strict adherence to constitutional guarantees of the independence of advocacy, as well as the protection of attorney-client privilege as an integral component of human rights and the right to professional legal assistance.

The Council of Judges of Ukraine also agreed that the independence of the advocacy profession and the independence of the judiciary are interrelated elements of the functioning of a state governed by the rule of law, and that adherence to the guarantees of each of these institutions is a prerequisite for ensuring the right to a fair trial.

At the same time, the body of judicial self-governance noted that, given the principles of institutional independence of bodies within the justice system and ethical standards, the High Council of Justice does not have the authority to evaluate acts of the High Council of Prosecutors. This was also explained by the need to ensure respect for the constitutional status of this body.

At the same time, they separately noted that ensuring an appropriate balance between the powers of bodies within the justice system depends to a large extent on the professional competence, integrity, and independence of the members of such bodies.

In light of this, the Council of Judges proposed that the BCU conduct competitive selection procedures within the scope of its authority to form the composition of the High Council of Justice under the advocacy quota, paying particular attention to nominating candidates capable of consistently upholding constitutional guarantees of the independence of advocacy, adherence to attorney-client privilege, and human rights in general.

The Council of Judges also initiated a bilateral working meeting with the BCU to discuss the issues raised in the appeal and develop coordinated approaches aimed at strengthening guarantees of the independence of the legal professions and ensuring the rule of law.

At the same time, the body of judicial self-governance confirmed its readiness for further constructive institutional dialogue with the advocacy association.