Constitutional Court Examines Honcharenko's Challenge
The Constitutional Court of Ukraine is currently reviewing a constitutional complaint filed by Oleksii Honcharenko, which questions the legality of the second paragraph of Part One, Article 88 of the Law on the Judiciary and the Status of Judges, as amended by the Law on the High Council of Justice. This complaint concerns the assessment of Honcharenko’s fitness for his judicial position and the related decisions made by the High Qualification Commission of Judges and courts. The case spans from 2013 to 2026 and involves rulings from both the Supreme Court and its Grand Chamber. Honcharenko disputes the decision declaring him unfit for office and seeks a constitutional declaration invalidating the law.
Case Heard by the Second Senate
On October 28, 2026, the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court considered Honcharenko’s constitutional complaint. The focus remains on the contested provision in Article 88, Part One, paragraph two, of the Law on the Judiciary and the Status of Judges, as revised by the legislation concerning the High Council of Justice. Notably, on July 25, 2013, President of Ukraine appointed Oleksii Honcharenko as a judge of the Mezhivskyi District Court in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast for a five-year term.
Subsequently, on February 1, 2018, the High Qualification Commission of Judges initiated a performance evaluation of Judge Honcharenko. By November 15, 2023, the Commission confirmed that Honcharenko met the requirements of his position. However, on February 12, 2024, the Commission reversed this finding, declaring Honcharenko unfit and recommended his dismissal to the High Council of Justice. Honcharenko challenged this decision before the Cassation Administrative Court of the Supreme Court.
On August 7, 2025, the Cassation Administrative Court partially upheld Honcharenko’s claim, annulling the Commission’s February 12, 2024 decision as unlawful. Yet, on January 15, 2026, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned that ruling and dismissed the claim. In his constitutional complaint, Honcharenko argues that the disputed legal clause violates Articles 8, 19, 57, 126 of the Ukrainian Constitution, as well as subparagraph 4 of point 16-1 in Section XV (“Transitional Provisions”) of the Constitution.
Judge-rapporteur Serhii Riznyk presented the details of the constitutional complaint and the claimant’s arguments. Oleksii Honcharenko attended the plenary session of the Second Senate. The Court’s examination of this case represents a critical moment for the interpretation and constitutionality of the laws governing judicial status in Ukraine.
This constitutional review holds considerable significance for Ukraine’s legal system. The Court’s decision on the constitutionality of judicial status regulations could impact public trust in the judiciary and its independence. Moreover, this case emphasizes the necessity of adhering to proper legal procedures when evaluating judges’ performance—an essential factor for upholding fairness and the rule of law in the country.
As the Constitutional Court navigates the complexities of Honcharenko's case, it is worth noting the recent decision regarding military bail procedures. This ruling, which declared the current military bail revocation process unconstitutional, highlights ongoing challenges within the judicial framework in Ukraine. For further insights into this significant development, you can explore more about the unconstitutional military bail procedures and their implications.