Back
Automatically translated version. May contain inaccuracies compared to the original.
Our regular column: the effectiveness of the Public Integrity Council's work.
In July 2026 the PIC produced 28 documents. This is one of the worst results for a year of the PIC’s work 4.0.
At the same time, 14 documents are negative information; 14 documents are negative conclusions regarding judges and candidates.
This is also further proof that the current model of how the PIC operates does not work properly.
We also noticed that most conclusions were voted on with the participation of only 10–11 PIC members. In fact, that's only half of its membership.
Recall that funding to support the PIC’s functioning is received from donors by the DEJURE Foundation.
And last year, during the PIC’s selection 4.0, everyone witnessed a scandal with lists that showed DEJURE had 9 “its own” members on the PIC in that composition.
The second part of the scandal was that some PIC members receive salaries from DEJURE for their work on the PIC, which violates the principles of public involvement in the procedures for vetting judges and judicial candidates.
So right now we have a situation where the majority of negative conclusions about judges are adopted by “DEJURE people,” whom DEJURE also pays for that work.
Is everyone really okay with that?
