"Court Law Review" is an annual conference proceedings published following the international conference, "Current Issues in Court Law", which is one of the leading events for the legal community in Ukraine. The conference focuses on the most pressing issues concerning the development of the judicial system, justice, judicial practice, and legal regulation both in Ukraine and abroad. The event is co-organized by specialized departments of prominent Ukrainian universities, professional associations, and international partners. This proceedings volume features peer-reviewed articles that address modern challenges and trends in the development of court law, the administration of justice, and judicial practice in Ukraine and within an international context. The publications cover a wide range of relevant topics, including the reform of the judicial system, safeguarding human rights in legal proceedings, alternative dispute resolution, and the interaction between national and international court systems. Particular attention is devoted to new approaches in judicial administration, enhancing the efficiency of justice, and contemporary issues in law enforcement. The editorial board of this proceedings comprises leading global and European experts in court law and justice from Poland, Lithuania, Austria, Germany, Balkan countries, and others. "Court Law Review" publishes research by academics, judges, lawyers, civil servants, and practitioners who present studies and recommendations for improving the judicial system and increasing the effectiveness of court proceedings in Ukraine. This publication is an essential resource for legal professionals, providing both practical and theoretical materials for further research and legislative initiatives. Article selection and publication follow strict ethical guidelines, using a double-anonymised peer review process carried out by external experts. The proceedings are published in English, ensuring broad international reach and facilitating knowledge exchange. This year, 2025, marks the 10th annual conference, originally founded in 2015!
DETERMINING THE ‘SEAT’ OF A COMPANY ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW – A REAL PROBLEM FOR REAL SEAT THEORY LEGISLATIONS
Background: Article 24(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation establishes exclusive jurisdiction for disputes regarding the validity or dissolution of companies in the Member State where the company has its ‘seat.’ While the Regulation refers to the private international law of the Member State to determine this seat, this reference creates complexity in legal systems such as Austria, which — like many continental European countries — adheres to the ‘real seat theory’ (Sections 10 and 12 of the Austrian Private International Law Act (IPRG)). A strict application of these private international law rules could imply not only that Austrian companies relocating their actual administration abroad lose their legal status, but also that the Austrian company-law dispute rules cease to apply. Methods: This article employs a legal-dogmatic analysis to interpret the term ‘private international law’ within the meaning of the Brussels Ia Regulation, examining whether it refers strictly to conflict-of-law rules or extends to civil procedural law. The study analyses the interplay between the Regulation, Austrian IPRG, and CJEU case law (Centros, Überseering, Cartesio, Polbud) to determine whether Section 10 IPRG requires a teleological reduction in cases of corporate relocation. Results and Conclusions: The analysis reveals that a strict application of Section 10 IPRG strictly to relocation cases would result in the ‘forced dissolution’ of Austrian companies, which is incompatible with modern EU corporate mobility principles. The author argues that Section 10 IPRG must be teleologically reduced to apply only to incoming companies, not those leaving. Consequently, for the purposes of Article 24(2) Brussels Ia Regulation, Austrian courts retain jurisdiction over companies incorporated in Austria even if their actual head office is located abroad. This interpretation prevents ‘cherry-picking’ of jurisdiction and ensures the necessary synchronisation between the applicable company law (lex societatis) and international jurisdiction (lex fori).
Copyright (c) 2025 Thomas Ratka (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
Cyberjustice as a Mechanism for Enhancing Judicial Efficiency
Background: The global technological revolution has ushered in "cyberjustice"—the application of digital platforms and AI to judicial processes, aiming to enhance efficiency and transparency. This mirrors a historical trend towards streamlined legal procedures. The growing importance of digital evidence further supports this shift. While nations like China and the UK have successfully implemented automated systems, the EU, though cautious, acknowledges technological integration through its 2024 AI Act. Ukraine, facing conflict-related challenges, sees an opportunity for judicial innovation. Despite existing digital initiatives improving access to data, core adjudication remains untransformed. Ukraine's judiciary suffers from low public trust, impartiality concerns, corruption, and judge shortages, necessitating fundamental reform, a point consistently highlighted by the ECHR. Methods: This paper analyzes global cyberjustice implementations, focusing on the conceptual shift to "cybercourts" that redefine judicial space and time. Examples from China, the UK, and Canada illustrate successful automation and its benefits. The study explores cybercourt "digital architecture" and emerging trends like "metaverse courts," considering opportunities (e.g., bias mitigation) and challenges (e.g., loss of "human face"). It integrates ECHR and CJEU case law to emphasize human oversight, procedural fairness, and access to justice. Legal prerequisites, including a "Procedural E-Code," are discussed. The paper specifically examines Ukraine, proposing cybercourts as a transformative solution to systemic issues, advocating a phased implementation with litigant choice. Results and Conclusions: Cyberjustice, via cybercourts, significantly enhances judicial efficiency, accessibility, and transparency through automation. Early adopters demonstrate reduced case resolution times. Cybercourts redefine justice's spatial and temporal dimensions, improving flexibility. However, caution is advised. While AI tools are beneficial for auxiliary functions, autonomous decision-making in substantive rulings remains contentious, demanding human oversight as per ECHR and EU AI Act principles. The shift to virtual courts necessitates addressing the "digital divide" to ensure equitable access. For Ukraine, cyberjustice is a strategic imperative for modernization, tackling issues like low public trust and judge shortages. Implementing a "Procedural E-Code" is crucial for legal validity. A phased, choice-based approach is vital for successful adoption. Adherence to international standards from the ECHR and CJEU is critical to mitigate biases and protect human rights. Ultimately, cyberjustice can enhance efficiency, standardize practice, reduce misconduct, and restore public trust, aligning Ukraine with European legal standards.
Copyright (c) 2025 Dr.Lidiia Moskvych, Dr. iur, Professor Rainer Wedde (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
THE DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF JUDICIAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE UAE AND GCC COUNTRIES
ABSTRACT Background: This article examines how the UAE's justice sector has adopted digital transformation to enhance, primarily, the efficiency and accessibility of its judicial system. While the United Arab Emirates has positioned itself as a regional leader in this area, it is drawing on international best practices. We have tried to investigate how the UAE’s adoption of electronic justice experience aligns with global trends in judicial modernization. In this context, the judicial transformation serves not only as a governmental asset but also as a legal implication due to its process, data security, and procedural integrity. The purpose of the study is to discover the digital transformation of the UAE as a case study, comparing it with digital legal assets in the world and specifically the Gulf region. This analysis will provide the basis for discussions on technology-driven legal reform and offer guidance for policymakers to integrate technological innovation within the UAE's legal system in the digital era. Methods: This article uses qualitative, descriptive-analytical methods to examine the digital transformation of the justice system in the United Arab Emirates and its implications. This study primarily relies on the analysis of secondary sources, including official government publications, peer-reviewed legal scholarship, policy documents, and comparative legal data. Results and Conclusions: The main findings demonstrate that the digitalization of the judicial system is progressing rapidly across the UAE, serving as a regional benchmark for GCC countries. However, due to the unique legal practices and jurisdictional nature in the Middle East, it hits a few benchmarks that differentiate it from the rest of the world. While the legal system in the country serves the united idea within the governmental structure, digitalization brings about its implications. The article's conclusions emphasize that successful judicial digital transformation in the United Arab Emirates is achievable through the active participation of the government and a united approach that aligns with the requirements of the local society. The author suggests that centralizing the human-empathetic and inclusive judicial system is necessary. Training among the judges, prosecutors, and judicial bodies is required for the country to align with a digital system that evolves ahead of people's understanding.
Copyright (c) 2025 Риммa Дмитрівнa Топчий, Abouelwafa Ibrahim, Adham Hashish (Автор) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
CONFERENCE REPORT ON THE Х ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL CONFERENCE "CURRENT ISSUES OF COURT LAW"
The 10th Annual International Scientific and Practical Conference “Current Issues of Court Law”, held in Kyiv on April 25, 2025, served as a crucial platform for legal scholars, practitioners, and emerging researchers to examine the challenges and opportunities of judicial reform, transitional justice and the digitalization of justice in Ukraine. The conference aimed to facilitate knowledge exchange, comparative analysis, and the development of practical recommendations to guide Ukraine’s judicial reforms and support post-conflict recovery. This report provides an overview of the event, highlighting the contributions of key speakers and the main themes addressed during the discussion
Copyright (c) 2025 Prof. Dr. Oksana Khotynska-Nor, Mag.Bohdana Zahrebelna (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
The Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer: Expectations and Prospects
ABSTRACT Background: By joining the Council of Europe, Ukraine undertook to ensure that the status of the legal profession would be protected by law. The Constitution of Ukraine declares that the independence of the legal profession is guaranteed, since the independent professional activity of lawyers requires not only the conscious and volitional nature of the performance of professional duties by lawyers, but must be ensured by guarantees from the state. In conditions of war and mobilization in Ukraine, the situation in the field of violations of the guarantees of legal activity has worsened: systematic interference in professional activity, violence against lawyers, illegal deprivation of liberty, seizure of things and documents containing legal secrets have been noted. However, the permanently difficult situation in the field of security of legal activity is observed not only in Ukraine. Violations of the professional rights of lawyers are also noted in the countries of the European Union, which prompted the EU to introduce more effective mechanisms capable of obliging states to protect the legal profession. March 12, 2025 The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer, which was signed by 17 countries on 13-14 May 2025. The article presents the analysis of the Convention, defining the features of its scope and ensuring its implementation. The need for Ukraine's accession to the Convention is substantiated. The author's analysis was based on the statistical indicators of violations of lawyers' rights in Ukraine, decisions of the Council of Lawyers of Ukraine and the Odesa Regional Bar Council. Methods: The authors used a chronological method, synthesis and a method of information analysis. Actual statistical and empirical data are used for proper argumentation of the conclusions. Results and Conclusions: A conclusion was made about the new approach, in which the modern dimension of the protection of the lawyer's profession is carried out not only by protecting the rights of lawyers, but also by other subjects. The mandatory nature of the provisions of the Convention and the monitoring mechanism introduced by it make it a unique tool that ensures the implementation of the tasks of the bar. For Ukraine, in difficult times of war and in light of the hope for post-war recovery, the Convention sends a powerful signal of the European community's attention to the fundamental values ​​that lawyers uphold and protect.
Сonvention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer
Copyright (c) 2025 Nana Bakaianova (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
The Role of the Media in Transitional Justice: A Comparative Analysis of Taiwan and Ukraine
ABSTRACT Background. The study explores the key role of the media in the implementation of transitional justice mechanisms, using the example of two different but comparable countries—Ukraine and Taiwan. Both countries have undergone large-scale political transformations: Taiwan from authoritarian control by the Kuomintang party to democratic governance, and Ukraine as a post-Soviet state in a state of armed conflict and simultaneously rethinking its totalitarian past. In both contexts, the media act not only as a channel of information but also as a tool for influencing public opinion, shaping national memory, legitimizing legal processes, and ensuring open dialogue. The objective of this study is to identify similarities and differences in the functioning of the media in transitional justice processes in Ukraine and Taiwan, as well as to determine how they contribute to the achievement of its main objectives: establishing the truth, providing reparations, bringing the perpetrators to justice, and promoting reconciliation. Methods. The methodology of this study is based on an interdisciplinary approach that includes comparative legal analysis of normative acts, content analysis of media publications, a review of scientific literature, and doctrinal studies of the role of the media in legal discourse. The empirical basis consists of official documents, court practice, media materials, and public statements by representatives of transitional justice institutions in each country. Results and conclusions. This study highlights the dual nature of the media: on the one hand, they can support processes of reconciliation and public reappraisal of the past; on the other hand, they can become a source of polarization through political bias or the spread of disinformation. In Taiwan, the media actively covered the activities of the Transitional Justice Commission, promoted the memory of the repressed, and created space for public discussion. In Ukraine, the media operates in the context of ongoing war, focusing on documenting war crimes, exposing disinformation, and mobilizing national resistance. The study's conclusions emphasize that successful transitional justice is impossible without the participation of independent and professional media. Taiwan's experience can be useful for Ukraine in terms of memorialization, archiving crimes, public apologies, and supporting victims' rights. At the same time, Ukraine's practice of countering hybrid warfare, especially in the field of information security, is valuable for Taiwan and other states experiencing pressure from authoritarian regimes.
Copyright (c) 2025 Alona Harahata , Wei-Hsin Fu (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
Assessment of Judges’ Professional Competence and Integrity in the Context of European Integration: Experience of Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova
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.
Copyright (c) 2025 Olga Ovsiannikova (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
The Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine: Prospects for Transforming Institutional Status
Background: The paper highlights some current issues of the legislation of Ukraine in the field of administration of the prosecution system in Ukraine through the lens of reflection on European integration trends. Special attention is drawn to the ambiguity of conceptual understanding in the legislative regulation of the legal status of such a management body in this area as the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine, the certainty of legal category ‘Judicial Governance’ and the Possibility of Extrapolating this Model to the prosecution system, the prospects for transformation of the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine and the introduction of the institute of prosecutorial governance. This study was carried out to answer the following questions: what is the essence of the European integration vision regarding the institutional shortcomings of the administration of the Public Prosecutor's Office system under the legislation of Ukraine, outlined in relevant documents? What is the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine as one of the bodies of the administration of the prosecution system in Ukraine under Ukrainian law? Is the legislatively defined status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine consistent with its staffing and the nature of its powers? What were the prerequisites for the legislative regulation of the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine as a body of prosecutorial self-governance, despite the conceptual inconsistency of the staffing and some powers of this body with the concept of ‘prosecutorial self-governance’? Is the legislatively defined status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine consistent with the vision of European experts, as set out in the relevant documents on the EU's enlargement policy towards Ukraine? Given the constitutionally defined trend toward approximating prosecution to the judiciary, is there any unity in legislative approaches to regulating the organisation and functioning of governance and self-governance bodies in adjacent legal institutions, including the judiciary? Is it advisable to use the experience of administrating the judiciary system in Ukraine concerning the organisation and functioning of judicial governance and self-government bodies, and extrapolate it to the prosecution system? What are the prospects and models for the possible introduction of the institution of prosecutorial governance as one of the ways to transform the institutional status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine? The article aims to provide a conceptual justification for legislative approaches to transforming the institutional status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine as one of the management bodies of the prosecution system, to identify shortcomings in legislation that necessitate such a transformation, and to offer proposals for ways to achieve this transformation, considering international standards and European integration trends. Methods. To achieve the research purpose, general and unique scientific research methods were applied. The paper is underpinned by the fundamental literature sources, including scientific papers, legislative acts, and international conventions. To meet the nature of the problem raised in the paper, research works, information, analytical reports from respective reputable organisations were used. The study is based on the following methods: dialectical, systemic, and structural analysis, comparative legal analysis, abstraction, forecasting and modelling, analysis, synthesis, and generalisation. The dialectical method and systemic and structural analysis were used to identify general patterns in the formation and development of the justice system and to determine the role of the prosecution within this system in general, and the prosecution system administration bodies in particular. This revealed a trend toward aligning the prosecutor's office closer with the judiciary as an adjacent legal institution that assists courts in administering justice. It also enabled the testing of the hypothesis and substantiation of the conclusion that it is appropriate to approximate the legal status of prosecution administration bodies to that of bodies with a similar legal nature within the judiciary. This contributed to distinguishing the factors influencing changes in the structural elements of the legal regulation mechanism governing relations in this sphere and to identifying directions for further development, particularly in light of the European integration aspirations of Ukraine and the resulting reforms concerning the legal status of prosecution system administration bodies as a prerequisite for progress toward European integration. The comparative legal analysis method and the method of interpreting legal norms were employed to examine the positions of European experts regarding institutional shortcomings in the administration of the prosecution system under Ukrainian legislation, as well as legislative approaches to regulating the legal status of prosecutorial self-governance bodies and judicial governance bodies. This made it possible to summarise the identified shortcomings in the administration of the prosecution system under Ukrainian law and to substantiate conclusions about the differing legislative approaches to regulating the legal status of institutions of professional governance and self-governance in the justice system in Ukraine that are similar in their legal nature concerning judges and prosecutors. It also highlighted the need for conceptual substantiation and legal certainty in efforts to establish a uniform conceptual framework for defining the mission, competence, and procedures for forming bodies of professional governance and self-governance within the justice system. The methods of abstraction, forecasting, and modeling were employed to explore ways of addressing ambiguities in the conceptual understanding of the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine, which enabled the substantiation of directions for transforming its legal status either by defining its mixed legal nature, or by aligning the procedure for forming its composition and powers with the legislatively established concept of ‘prosecutorial self-governance’ and the creating a separate Prosecutorial Council, as well as proposing a model for such a Council. The methods of analysis, synthesis, and generalisation were applied to develop conceptual proposals for harmonising approaches to the formation of bodies within the prosecution system and the judiciary that are similar in their legal nature, with due regard to international standards and European integration trends in the development of the justice system in Ukraine, and contributed to the well-grounded substantiation of the general conclusions of the study. Results and Conclusions: it has been established that the European integration perspective on institutional shortcomings in the administration of the prosecution system under Ukrainian legislation is primarily focused on democratic bodies responsible for administering this system, as well as on the bodies administering the judiciary, given that they are vested with legislative powers to exert administrative influence over the prosecution system. It has been argued that one of the pressing issues in the functioning of the prosecution system’s administration bodies in Ukraine is an ambiguous conceptual understanding of the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine, which arises from the particularities of implementing European standards for the organisation and functioning of prosecution system administration bodies into national legislation. Attention has been drawn to the particularities of legislative regulation of the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine, which indicates that this body is, in practice, endowed with two legal statuses: that of a body of prosecutorial self-governance and that of a body of governance. It has been proved that such legislative regulation does not contribute to the effective protection of prosecutors' independence from external and internal pressures and undermines the potential of this body in the professional community. A need to regulate and conceptually define the category of ‘judicial governance’ for the justice system as a whole, and for its possible extrapolation to the prosecution system in particular, has been substantiated. The existence of different legislative approaches to regulating the legal status of institutions of professional governance and self-governance in the justice system in Ukraine, which are similar in their nature concerning judges and prosecutors, has been noted. It has been substantiated that there is a need for stronger justification and greater legal certainty in the effort to create a single conceptual framework for defining the mission, competence, and procedures for forming such bodies of administration within the justice system. The prospects for transforming the legal status of the Council of Prosecutors of Ukraine have been established, specifically, through harmonising the methods of forming its composition and powers with the legislatively enshrined definition of ‘prosecutorial self-governance’ and creating a separate Prosecutorial Council within the institution of prosecutorial governance.
Copyright (c) 2025 Maryna Stefanchuk, Kyrylo Legkykh (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
The Importance of Effective Institutional Frameworks in the EU Integration Process: Lessons from Bosnia and Herzegovina
The progress of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the process of EU integrations can be described as slow and difficult. Many reasons contribute to such development, starting with political instability. However, even in the case of absence of political difficulties, certain features of the constitutional and legal system of the country make decision-making at state level and conducting necessary reforms slow and ineffective. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitution is a part of a Dayton Peace Agreement, which was a result of long peace negotiations to end one of the bloodiest conflicts in the 1990’s. It achieved in stopping the conflict, but inserted many features which make reforms difficult, such as complicated decision-making process, fragmented state apparatus and division of competences between different levels of government. One of the features of the constitutional system is the set of group rights belonging to the so-called constituent peoples. The principle foresees certain procedural rules related to the parity in appointment of officials as well as necessary quotas and veto powers in the decision-making process in the legislative and executive bodies. Primarily seen as a compromise to bring back inter-ethnic trust, in recent years, it has been increasingly seen by European Institutions such as European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission, as discriminatory and ineffective, hampering the progress of the state on its path to EU integration. The European Court of Human Rights has in multiple cases described the realization of principle of constituent peoples as contrary to human rights standards. On the other hand, the EU institutions, such as European Commission, in its assessments of the readiness of Bosnia and Herzegovina to progress in EU integrations and potentially become a EU Member state, has pointed to the fact that realization of the principle is detrimental to the decision-making process. The non-compliance with the European Court of Human Rights decisions related to the discriminatory nature of the principle, has slowed the country’s EU integration process, even in the stage of signing of the Stabilization and Association Agreement, as is still an outstanding obligation. All of that is negatively impacting institutional frameworks aimed at devising and implementing necessary reforms on the EU integration path. This article analyses the position of the principle of “constituent peoples” in the legal system of the country and its evaluation by the European institutions as detrimental to country’s progress.
Copyright (c) 2025 Dr. Harun Halilović (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
The Role of Law Enforcement Agencies in the Transitional Justice System: International Practice and the Ukrainian Context
Background: This article examines the role of law enforcement agencies within the system of transitional justice, with particular attention to international practice and its relevance for Ukraine’s post-conflict recovery. In the aftermath of armed conflicts, regime changes, or systemic violence, societies must simultaneously redress past human rights violations and rebuild public trust in state institutions. As global experience shows, law enforcement bodies occupy a pivotal yet complex position in this process – investigating and prosecuting crimes, contributing to truth-seeking initiatives, protecting victims, and facilitating institutional reform. The article aims to identify an effective model for the participation of law enforcement agencies in transitional justice, one that balances their retributive, protective, and reconciliatory functions in accordance with international legal standards and public expectations. It argues that the integration of internationally tested practices can enhance the legitimacy of Ukraine’s justice system and promote sustainable reconciliation. Methods: The methodology combines doctrinal, comparative, and interdisciplinary approaches. The research includes an analysis of international and domestic legal frameworks, comparative case studies (South Africa, Colombia, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia), and an examination of Ukraine’s legal and institutional environment. Political and sociological insights are also incorporated to contextualize the role of law enforcement in post-conflict societies. Results and Conclusions: The study finds that law enforcement agencies must undergo both structural and cultural transformation to perform effectively in transitional settings. Their function extends beyond criminal enforcement to securing victims’ rights, strengthening public confidence, and preventing the recurrence of mass abuses. Challenges such as political interference, limited expertise in international crimes, institutional distrust, and resource constraints persist. However, through targeted reforms, international cooperation, and a victim-centred approach, law enforcement institutions can significantly contribute to a just and durable peace. The article concludes that in Ukraine’s context, establishing a transitional justice framework rooted in accountability, professionalism, and human rights compliance within the law enforcement sector is imperative. Such a system can not only deliver legal redress and reinforce institutional legitimacy but also serve as a model for other nations confronting the legacy of mass violence.
Copyright (c) 2025 Oleksandr Dudchenko, Dr. Rainer Birke (Author) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
Conference Panel Report: European Legal Practices Informing Ukraine’s Path to EU Membership
Background: The annual international scientific and practical conference, “Current Issues in Court Law,” serves as a vital forum for legal scholars and practitioners to discuss judicial reform. The 2025 conference, held virtually, focused on the institutional transformation of the judiciary in Ukraine amid martial law and accelerated European integration. A central cross-cutting theme was the dynamic interaction between national legal frameworks and European legal standards, a core element of the accession process for Ukraine and other candidate states like Albania, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This report summarizes the key insights from Panel I, "European Practices in the Field of Justice: Lessons for Ukraine’s Integration Path." The panel aimed to provide comparative perspectives and practical recommendations to guide Ukraine’s judicial reforms. Methods: The panel report synthesizes presentations from nine distinguished speakers from various European jurisdictions, including Ukraine, Poland, Austria, Germany, Albania, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the United Kingdom. Their contributions, which included keynote addresses and comparative analyses, were grounded in both theoretical legal scholarship and practical experience. Topics covered included constitutional alignment, judicial independence, cross-border dispute resolution, consumer protection, and post-accession reform challenges. The analysis draws on diverse case studies, highlighting lessons learned from both established EU members and other candidate countries to inform Ukraine's reform efforts. Results and Conclusions: The panel provided a comprehensive comparative analysis of judicial reform models and highlighted key takeaways for Ukraine. Speakers emphasized the necessity of aligning Ukraine's constitutional jurisprudence with EU norms while safeguarding judicial independence, as highlighted by Prof. Horodovenko. Dr. Scholz-Nartowski’s presentation underlined the crucial role of autonomous legal professional bodies in promoting accountability. Case studies from candidate countries revealed that while alignment with the acquis communautaire is vital, reforms must be context-sensitive and overcome entrenched structural challenges, as demonstrated by the experiences of Albania, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Presentations on the EU Representative Actions Directive and cross-border disputes underscored the need for legislative and procedural harmonization. The panel concluded that Ukraine’s integration requires more than legal harmonization; it demands deep institutional recalibration, strategic vision, and sustained cooperation. Active scholarly engagement and dialogue between EU members and candidate states are essential to building a resilient and trusted justice system aligned with European values.
Copyright (c) 2025 Ірина Ізарова https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0