Farewell to an Overburdened Themis
On October 7, the Supreme Court of Ukraine held a notable press conference. The journalists present were able to put questions to Supreme Court Chairman Vitaly Boiko who has offered his resignation but is still on duty until Verkhovna Rada ratifies this motion. In all probability, this was the last chance for Mr. Boiko to speak to the media in his current capacity. Perhaps for this reason or because justice has not always been administered in this country the right way, Mr. Boiko put special emphasis precisely on the system and nature of the Ukrainian Themis. He spoke with maximum frankness about what can interest the common people and with utmost restraint about the current political developments.
Mr. Boiko himself believes the Ukrainian judicial system has been “about 90%” reformed. Yet, he admits that justice in this country has still been ridden with problems even since the Law on the Judicial System came into force. The reason is quite obvious: unequal financing of the branches of power, with this country’s courts of general jurisdiction being the least funded. This – let us agree with Mr. Boiko – “is not very good,” first of all, for the ordinary taxpayer. Can we expect the wisdom and attentiveness of Solomon from a judge overloaded with lawsuits and sitting in, say, the rooms of a kindergarten? However, the administration of justice in such conditions is common practice in Ukraine.
In the first six months of this year alone, the above-mentioned courts saw an almost twofold increase in their workload. Common pleas courts handled 2,210,624 cases (excluding economic disputes), up 1,096,462 on the same period of the last year, while the number of judges had risen by only 986, reaching 4,550. Elementary arithmetic shows that the monthly case/judge ratio had gone up from 51 to 89, while remuneration for the judiciary had remained the same.
“There are unfilled vacancies at practically all judicial levels except the Supreme Court,” Mr. Boiko says, “but we are unable to increase the judiciary staff because we lack the suitable premises.” “We just don’t have places to accommodate them,” he thus describes the situation in simple terms. In real life, this state of affairs entails the dependency (of what are theoretically the most impartial professionals), on the local administration and sponsors who can find some more or less decent premises. It also results in a failure to try cases on the stipulated dates, and ‘telephone justice’... Incidentally, Mr. Boiko did not deny the latter practice, noting sarcastically that cases are sometimes solved over mobile phones registered in the name of third persons but used by judges. Symptomatically, Mr. Boiko chose not to hide his satisfaction over a newspaper article dealing with an individual who went as far as the European Court after futile attempts to have his problems addressed in Ukrainian courts.
Moreover, Mr. Boiko said in conclusion, “I have always found pleasure in communicating with you. And I know from my own experience that we (the judicial branch and the media – Ed. ) should support each other. We must show the way things should be done. For the subject of our work always disciplines the bureaucrat. Your presence makes a trial more than just an open session...” He asked the audience to pay attention to which judges Verkhovna Rada will grant a limitless tenure and which judges have applied for local court chairmanship. He also asked what these people (about 800) do in Kyiv, when inferior courts fail to meet the legally set deadlines.
