In modern Ukraine, the judicial system faces chronic challenges: low public trust, delays in the adjudication of cases, and displays of disrespect for the courts.

According to the Supreme Court, 380,000 cases were postponed in 2023 (a 12.9% increase from 2022), primarily due to the failure of parties to appear in court. During the same period, 56% of orders to bring defendants to court and over 50% of orders to bring witnesses to court remained unfulfilled, which also led to the postponement of court hearings. Although such actions violate the right to an effective judicial remedy, only 10 people were held administratively liable for contempt of court in 2023 (compared to just 8 in 2022). These statistics indicate the existence of a systemic problem, the resolution of which requires comprehensive legislative changes.

As the European Court of Human Rights emphasizes in its decision in *Bilukha v. Ukraine*, trust in the courts is the foundation of a democratic society. Draft Law No. 11387, “On Amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, the Criminal Code, and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine Regarding Ensuring Respect for the Court and the Efficiency of Criminal Proceedings.”

Registered on June 28, 2024, by a group of members of parliament led by Ruslan Stefanchuk, the bill passed its first reading on August 22, 2024. Currently, following a positive opinion from the Committee on Law Enforcement, it has been recommended for a second reading and adoption in its entirety with technical and legal amendments. However, despite being prepared, the law has not yet been adopted, making its discussion particularly relevant.

Key Provisions of Bill No. 11387: From Fines to Procedural Barriers

The
bill, prepared for its second reading, proposes comprehensive changes aimed at strengthening the accountability of participants in court proceedings and expediting judicial proceedings. Here are the main ones:

1. Administrative sanctions for contempt of court and failure to comply with court decisions (amendments to the Code of Administrative Offenses):

   • New Article 185⁶-¹ establishes liability for failure to take action regarding a court order to bring a party before the court: leaving the case unaddressed, returning the order without explanation, or unjustified non-compliance. It is proposed that such offenses be punishable by fines ranging from 100 to 200 NMDG (1,700–3,400 UAH). Court clerks will draw up reports on administrative offenses, and the cases will be heard by the courts.

   • Increased fines for contempt of court (Article 185³): for willful failure to comply with orders or failure to appear; for contempt of the Constitutional Court, fines ranging from 100 to 400 NMW (1,700–6,800 UAH) are proposed.

   • Amendment to Article 185⁵: Fines for obstructing a juror’s appearance are increased to 50–100 NMW (previously 5–8 NMW, unchanged since 1997).

   • Expansion of Article 188¹⁹: Liability is introduced for failure to comply with the requirements of Verkhovna Rada committees or for failure to appear at a plenary session (a fine of 800–1,000 NMW).

   • Clarification of the procedure for bringing individuals before a court in administrative cases (Article 268), with exceptions for minors, pregnant women, persons with first- or second-group disabilities, and single parents raising children under six years of age or children with disabilities.
      

2. Adaptation of criminal legislation (amendments to the Criminal Code of Ukraine):

   • Removal of anachronisms: removal of references to “lay judges” from Articles 22, 377–379, as this institution was abolished back in 2016. These changes are technical in nature and in no way diminish the protection afforded to judges and jurors against threats, violence, or failure to comply with court decisions.
      

3. Optimization of criminal procedure (amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine):

   • Replacement of the “minimum wage,” which was used for calculations in certain articles of the Code, with the “subsistence minimum for able-bodied persons” (SMAP), which will help unify the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine.

   • Doubling of penalties for witnesses: for failure to appear—up to 4 times the LMP (approximately 12,000 UAH); for sureties: for failure to fulfill the obligations assumed by the surety—up to 100 times the LMP (302,000 UAH).

   • Establishing a duty for the prosecutor to ensure the appearance of prosecution witnesses in court (Part 4 of Article 95).

   • Strengthening the liability of prosecutors and defense attorneys for failure to appear at a court hearing (Article 324), by establishing the court’s obligation to raise the issue of the liability of the prosecutor or defense attorney who failed to appear before the authorities authorized by law to hold them disciplinarily liable. In addition, in the event of a prosecutor’s repeated failure to appear at a court hearing without valid reasons, after having been duly notified of the date, time, and place of the hearing, the court shall, no later than 72 hours, be required to report the prosecutor’s repeated failure to appear to the relevant head of the prosecutor’s office for the purpose of taking organizational or disciplinary measures, as well as the body authorized by law to hold the prosecutor accountable through disciplinary proceedings, so that measures may be taken to hold the prosecutor accountable through disciplinary proceedings;

   • Amendment to the rules on recusal (Article 81): a motion for recusal must be considered without delay, but no later than 24 hours; a prohibition is introduced on the recusal of a judge who is considering a motion for recusal. This latter issue had previously not been addressed at all by procedural law, which led to practical disputes regarding the possibility of filing such a recusal request.

   • Simplification of the preparatory hearing (Article 314): the failure of the prosecutor, civil plaintiff, defendant, representative of the legal entity against which the proceedings are being conducted, victims or their representatives, or legal representatives to appear does not prevent the hearing from proceeding if they were duly notified of the court hearing; Under such circumstances, the motions filed are considered on their merits.

   • Review of rulings imposing monetary penalties by another judge of the same court to ensure impartiality (Article 147).
      

Additionally, amendments to the Laws “On the National Police” and “On Temporary Commissions of the Verkhovna Rada” allow for compulsory appearance by parliamentary decision.

Weaknesses of Draft Law No. 11387

Despite its stated objectives, the bill has obvious flaws that, in practice, may make it impossible to implement its provisions. Among these shortcomings, the following should be highlighted:

• Legal uncertainty and conflicts: Article 185⁶-¹ of the Code of Administrative Offenses partially duplicates Article 382 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (failure to comply with a court decision), without a clear distinction between their provisions. Thus, the term “unjustified failure to comply” lacks clarity, which will inevitably cause problems with the practical application of the provision and may lead to a violation of the principle of legal certainty and the rights of individuals who will be held legally liable.  

• Constitutional Risks: The prohibition on recusal of a judge hearing a recusal motion may restrict a person’s right to have their case heard by an independent and impartial court (Articles 55 and 129 of the Constitution), creating a risk of numerous appeals to the ECHR due to violations of the right to a fair trial. 

• Practical shortcomings: 

• A 24-hour deadline for reviewing a recusal motion is unrealistic due to the courts’ heavy caseload. Formally setting deadlines without ensuring their enforcement undermines the institution itself;

• The proposed obligation of the prosecutor to ensure the appearance of witnesses duplicates existing provisions (Part 2 of Article 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine), but does not introduce any new mechanisms that would allow the prosecutor to effectively ensure the appearance of prosecution witnesses, which in practice will render this obligation merely declaratory. 

• Increased fines (up to 6,800 UAH for contempt) may have a “chilling effect” on participants and journalists, limiting transparency, without clear boundaries between criticism and a violation. The increase in penalties is disproportionate and does not address the systemic causes (court backlog).

• Restriction of rights: Simplifying the preliminary hearing risks limiting the rights of victims and other participants in criminal proceedings (access to justice), which in practice could lead to the overturning of convictions and even longer court proceedings.
   

In summary, Bill No. 11387, despite its ambitious goal—to improve efficiency and respect for the courts—still requires careful refinement: a clear delineation of provisions, proportionate sanctions, and implementation mechanisms to avoid conflicts and constitutional risks. 

Without a comprehensive approach that addresses not only legislative amendments but also systemic flaws—such as court backlogs and insufficient coordination among agencies and resources—these changes risk remaining merely declarative, with extremely limited impact.