Why Has Ukraine Still Not Appointed Ad Hoc Judges to the European Court of Human Rights?
Attorney Oleksiy Shevchuk asked Mykola Hnatovsky, Ukraine’s judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), why our country has not yet selected its next representative to this judicial body, who would be authorized to replace Hnatovsky if necessary.
“I continue to share my diplomatic reflections, which are inspired by my studies at the Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine. Today I had the opportunity to speak with Mykola Hnatovsky—a judge of the European Court of Human Rights elected from Ukraine. One of the interesting and, at the same time, important topics of our conversation was the issue of compiling a list of ad hoc judges from Ukraine for the ECHR. According to information shared during our conversation, Ukraine still has only two people on the list of ad hoc judges instead of three. In other words, the list remains incomplete,” Shevchuk noted.
The ad hoc mechanism provides for the possibility of appointing another judge in cases where a judge elected from the relevant state cannot participate in the consideration of a specific case, particularly due to recusal. There have already been instances where, due to Mr. Hnatovsky’s inability to participate in the consideration of certain cases, the ECHR had to involve judges from other states.
ECHR judges, including ad hoc judges, are independent and do not represent the interests of their state while administering justice. However, it is the state itself that is responsible for properly compiling the relevant list of candidates.
“Of course, the Court must ensure the continuity of justice and render decisions in accordance with established procedures. And this is precisely what Mr. Hnatovsky emphasized. But another question arises for me. Why has Ukraine still not ensured the compilation of a complete list of three ad hoc judges?
After all, this is not merely an organizational issue. It concerns the proper representation of the Ukrainian legal system within the international judicial framework, the state’s institutional responsibility, and its ability to fulfill its international procedural obligations in a timely manner,” says Shevchuk.
“In my view, Ukraine must complete this procedure as soon as possible and ensure that a full list of ad hoc judges is available. We talk a lot about European integration, the rule of law, and international justice. But these principles begin with concrete institutional decisions. Diplomacy is not just about international negotiations. It’s also about the ability to identify gaps in one’s own state system and address them in a timely manner,” Shevchuk concludes.
