Background: The article presents a comprehensive study of the mechanisms for assessing the professional competence and integrity of judges in Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova within the framework of European integration. The focus is placed on the critical role of these qualities in ensuring the independence, efficiency, and credibility of the judiciary—an essential element of the rule of law. It is emphasized that granting Ukraine and Moldova candidate status for EU membership has necessitated deep institutional reforms, particularly in the judicial sphere, in line with the requirements of the European Commission and the recommendations of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
Methods: The study employed a set of general scientific and special legal methods that ensured a comprehensive analysis of judicial evaluation in the context of the European integration commitments of Ukraine and Moldova. The comparative legal method enabled the examination of legislative frameworks and practices in both countries and the assessment of their compliance with European standards. The analysis of legal acts and the formal legal method were applied to study the legislative basis and interpret the legal status of institutions responsible for judicial evaluation. The empirical method incorporated statistical data and the performance of relevant bodies. The historical legal approach made it possible to trace the stages of development of evaluation procedures, while content analysis of international documents revealed key trends, critical assessments, and recommendations. The combined application of these methods ensured a systematic character of the research and provided grounds for conclusions regarding the compliance of national mechanisms with international standards and the prospects for reform.
Results and Conclusions: The concepts of "professional competence" and "judicial integrity" are analyzed as multidimensional categories encompassing not only legal knowledge and professional skills, but also ethical conduct, psychological resilience, communication abilities, financial transparency, and alignment of lifestyle with judicial status. Attention is drawn to the lack of a unified international legal definition of these concepts, yet they remain core criteria for the evaluation of judges in most European countries. The article provides a comparative analysis of national models for evaluating judges: Ukraine’s judicial qualification assessment procedure and Moldova’s vetting process. The Ukrainian approach emphasizes a formalized, multi-stage assessment including testing, psychological evaluation, and scrutiny of asset declarations. Moldova’s system relies heavily on institutional oversight, significant involvement of international experts, and a thorough review of judges’ financial, ethical, and professional profiles. Both models aim to cleanse the judiciary of unfit personnel and restore public trust in the justice system. The study also reviews the European experience (Germany, France, Italy, Poland) in evaluating judges, identifying common features and national specificities. These systems demonstrate a pan-European trend toward combining the evaluation of judicial performance with integrity checks. The article examines international legal standards in this field, including the European Charter on the Statute for Judges, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, and recommendations from GRECO and CEPEJ. The conclusion emphasizes that the successful implementation of judicial assessment procedures requires independent judicial governance bodies, transparent rules, clearly defined criteria, adequate funding, and strong political will. Professional competence and integrity must be treated as interrelated pillars of judicial professionalism, without which fair and effective justice in a democratic society cannot be achieved.
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.