Stanislav Bronevytskyi Comments on the Appointment of the Prosecutor General
Stanislav Bronevytskyi, a former prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, has addressed the absence of any requirement in official documents between Ukraine and the European Union to hold a competition for the position of Prosecutor General. According to him, the joint statement adopted by Ukrainian and European sides in December 2025 only calls for a review of the appointment and dismissal procedures for the Prosecutor General, not for a competitive selection process.
Bronevytskyi provided examples of prosecutor appointments across European nations, noting that:
- in Austria, prosecutors are appointed by the federal president;
- in Romania, the president appoints them on the recommendation of the Ministry of Justice;
- in the Czech Republic, the government appoints the Supreme State Prosecutor based on a proposal from the Minister of Justice;
- in Finland, the government proposes a candidate, and the president appoints the Prosecutor General;
- in Sweden, the Prosecutor General and their deputy are appointed by the government.
“If we’re talking about the best European practices, we should look at how it works in Europe itself,” Bronevytskyi remarked.
He also stressed that appointing the Prosecutor General is one of the powers vested in Ukraine’s president by the Constitution. 'Therefore, changing the procedure for appointing the Prosecutor General would require amending the Constitution of Ukraine,' he added. Bronevytskyi noted that the demand for a competition for the Prosecutor General role emerged as one of Brussels’ conditions for Ukraine after the EU decided to open the negotiation cluster on Fundamentals.
Furthermore, he expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of competitive procedures. 'A competition is not a cure-all for every problem. We’ve already seen a series of competitive processes that ended in major disappointment or even collapse,' he said. Bronevytskyi pointed out that organizing and conducting a competitive procedure takes time, which, in his view, could be lengthy. 'Without a Prosecutor General, the country and the prosecutor’s office cannot function properly,' he concluded.
Bronevytskyi’s remarks highlight the need for clarity in the requirements and procedures related to the appointment of the Prosecutor General. They also question the wisdom of introducing competitive procedures without a proper legal framework, which could create additional challenges for the prosecutor’s office. As Ukraine pursues EU integration, striking a balance between international demands and domestic legal norms is crucial, and this could significantly shape the future of the country’s legal system.
In light of the ongoing discussions regarding the appointment of the Prosecutor General, it's essential to consider recent developments in Ukraine's legal landscape. Notably, the recent lawsuit by Bornyakov has been hailed as a significant moment, reflecting the evolving dynamics within the country's judicial system. This case underscores the complexities surrounding legal appointments and the broader implications for governance in Ukraine.