Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court issued an important decision regarding the qualification assessment of judges for fitness to hold their position.
By this decision, the GC SC determined at which stage a judge may challenge the High Qualification Commission of Judges’ decision finding them unfit for their position.
When the HQCJ adopts a negative decision based on a judge’s assessment as to fitness for their position, it submits a proposal to the High Council of Justice for the judge’s dismissal from office, which is carried out by the latter’s decision.
The HCJ may agree with the lack of fitness found as a result of that assessment or refuse to satisfy the HQCJ’s proposal.
The Grand Chamber concluded that such a HQCJ decision may be appealed only after it has been considered by the HCJ on the Commission’s corresponding proposal, and only together with the decision adopted by the HCJ following that consideration.
“This rule applies regardless of the grounds the judge cites: whether in disagreement with the HQCJ’s reasons and justification, or in claims of the Commission’s procedural violations during the qualification assessment,” reports the Supreme Court.
The GC SC noted that the HCJ is empowered to evaluate such arguments when considering the HQCJ’s proposal, and thereafter they may be subject to judicial review when appealing the HCJ’s decision.
According to the GC SC’s conclusion, this approach allows avoiding fragmentation of the single qualification assessment procedure and parallel consideration of related issues by the HCJ and the court.
The judge’s right to judicial protection in such a case will not be lost, because after the HCJ completes consideration of the proposal, a court can review both the HCJ’s final decision and the arguments regarding violations committed by the HQCJ during the qualification assessment.
At the same time, the Grand Chamber identified exceptions to this rule. Separate appeal of the HQCJ’s decision is possible when the HCJ lacks the legal ability to consider the HQCJ’s proposal on the merits.
In case No. 990/77/25 the judge appealed the HQCJ’s decision of unfitness for the position, citing, in particular, procedural violations in the assessment, the procedure for taking into account the conclusions of the Public Integrity Council, the Commission’s voting results, and the unreasonableness of the assessment on certain criteria.
Because at the time of the case’s consideration the HCJ had not yet reviewed the HQCJ’s corresponding proposal, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court found the appeal to the court at that stage premature, annulled the Commercial Court of Appeal’s decision, and terminated proceedings in the case.
In formulating this conclusion, the Grand Chamber departed from the approach set out in rulings of 20 February 2025 in case No. 990/62/24 and of 19 June 2025 in case No. 990/239/24, according to which, in certain instances, independent appeals of a HQCJ decision before the HCJ’s consideration of the corresponding proposal were permitted if the arguments concerned procedural violations.
The full text of the GC SC’s ruling of 17 September 2026 in case No. 990/77/25 will be available later in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions, the Supreme Court reports.
Telegram publication
