The Institute of Magistrates is a novelty for Ukraine, although discussions about its introduction have been going on for a long time. Magistrates’ courts have successfully proved themselves in the UK, Israel, Italy, Switzerland, the US, Canada, and many other countries.

However, in Ukraine, neither the government nor the expert community has a unified vision of how magistrates should work, where and under what conditions this institution should be introduced, and finally, whether we need it at all.

Olga Lymar, executive director of the Reanimation Package of Reforms Coalition, states: “The topic of magistrates has been discussed for at least 15 years, and this institution appears in a number of program documents. We see the institution of magistrates as a tool, first of all, to involve citizens in the judicial process, to relieve the judicial system, and to increase the transparency of the judiciary.”

It is with the aim of forming this common vision among all interested stakeholders that the Reanimation Package of Reforms Coalition in partnership with the Center of Policy and Legal Reform and the NGO Legal Development Network within the framework of the Ukraine Responsible and Accountable Policy Program (U-RAP) implemented by the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), initiated and conducted a series of discussions with a range of experts involved in the development and functioning of the judiciary and policy-making in this area. 

Based on three discussions with the participation of judges, lawyers, academics, representatives of government agencies, communities and associations of local self-government bodies, and experts from NGOs, the RPR Coalition prepared a report that we presented at the public event “Institute of Magistrates as a Tool for Involving Communities in the Judiciary” held on September 12 in Kyiv.

The discussion was attended by representatives of the expert community, current judges, lawyers, representatives of local communities, and government representatives. We are sharing the report with you.

All participants agreed that some kind of format of the Institute of Magistrates is needed in Ukraine. The question is what kind of format we are talking about. For example, Deputy Minister of Justice of Ukraine Oleksandr Banchuk noted: “The instrument of magistrate courts needs to be introduced, but I would divide this issue into two components: magistrates as part of the justice system (and then the Constitution needs to be amended) or as a self-governing institution when issues are decided by communities. In this case, no constitutional amendments are needed; it will be one of the elements of pre-trial settlement of disputes between community members.”

In general, supporters of magistrate courts confirm that the introduction of the institution will improve access to justice for the population, as magistrate courts can operate at the level of individual territorial communities. At the same time, opponents of this idea claim that it would be more effective to improve the existing network of local courts. For example, Polina Li, Advisor to the Vice Prime Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine, Minister of Justice of Ukraine, notes: “I am a supporter of an alternative dispute resolution method. However, the way to implement it is problematic, based on the experience of introducing the jury institute. If we are talking about the Institute of Magistrates, we will face the same problems as when introducing the jury. Nevertheless, it is very expedient to introduce a pilot version of magistrates.”

The introduction of the Institute of Magistrates does not deny the solution of global problems of the judicial system of Ukraine in general, moreover, it should be a comprehensive approach, said Roman Smaliuk, an expert on the judiciary at the Center of Policy and Legal Reform: “Magistrate judges are not just about adopting a law that will be launched, and then we would be wondering whether it worked out. This is a much more complex issue that needs to be brought to a broader level – the overall integrity of the judicial system, transparency, and funding of judges.”

The government’s National Economic Strategy for the period up to 2030 envisages the introduction of the institute of magistrates as a task to ensure public participation in the judiciary. After the outbreak of a full-scale war, the state returned to this issue: the draft Recovery Plan for Ukraine in July 2022 identified the need to form this model of judges, and if the feasibility of such an institution is recognized, to adopt the necessary legislative framework. The implementation of this measure is scheduled for 2026-2032.

Finally, it is high time to define this mechanism of pre-trial dispute resolution and discuss not its expediency/inexpediency, but rather the applied aspects of the institution’s implementation. Vitaliy Okhrimenko, expert, director of strategic development at the Legal Development Network, agrees: “We can talk about three aspects of the requirements that the new system should have: the first is the issue of inclusiveness, the second is the cost, namely the cost of the institution of magistrates’ justice and its benefits to society, and the third is trust, the ability of magistrates to act as a mediator.”

We hope that the report and a series of public discussions will contribute to the continuation of the discussion and formulation of specific decisions regarding the institution of magistrates in Ukraine.

The event was organized by the Reanimation Package of Reforms Coalition in partnership with the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform and the NGO Legal Development Network thanks to the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the Ukraine Responsive and Accountable Politics Program (U-RAP), implemented by the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES). The views expressed at this event are solely those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.