Reanimation package of reforms > News > Columns > The Constitutional Court on the Brink: How Unfilled Vacancies Threaten Ukrainian Democracy
In a news feed filled with reports from the frontlines and international events, it’s easy to miss topics that seem purely “domestic” and technical. One of these is the uncertainty surrounding the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU).
The Reanimation Package of Reforms Coalition (RPR) and more than 100 civil society organizations recently appealed to the President of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada with a statement calling for commitment to Ukraine’s European integration path. One of the key demands of civil society is the appointment of CCU judges from among those who passed transparent, competitive selection and who are both ethical and competent for such a high office.
The Constitutional Court is, in essence, not even a court in the traditional sense. It does not resolve disputes of individuals or companies. Its mission is to protect the Constitution and the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals. Effectively, it is the country’s chief arbiter, ensuring that the President, Parliament, and Cabinet of Ministers do not exceed the limits set by the Constitution. By declaring laws that violate rights either constitutional or unconstitutional, it safeguards the rights and freedoms of every citizen.
According to the Constitution, the full composition of the Court is 18 judges. They are appointed equally: six by the President, six by Parliament, and six by the Congress of Judges of Ukraine. As of today, only 12 judges are in office. Six seats remain vacant — one-third of the Court.
While 12 is technically the minimum required for quorum (to convene the Grand Chamber and both Senates), this is a dangerous illusion. Retirement, resignation, or recusal of even one judge can paralyze one of the state’s key institutions.
More importantly, decisions of the Grand Chamber require 10 votes out of 12 — a nearly impossible task. In any complex case, dissenting opinions are inevitable. If just three judges vote against, abstain, or are absent due to illness, a decision cannot be adopted.
This means the Constitutional Court can hold hearings and review cases, but when it comes to final rulings (e.g., on mobilization, government powers, or anti-corruption legislation), it risks being powerless.
The reasons for this staffing shortage lie both in political delays and in the long-awaited reform.
One of the European Commission’s seven key recommendations for launching EU accession talks was the reform of CCU judicial selection. Our partners demanded transparent competitions with the involvement of independent international experts to prevent political influence and guarantee the integrity and professionalism of candidates. Ukrainian civil society also insisted on this reform: the RPR Coalition consistently advocated for a transparent mechanism with decisive participation of international experts.
Ukraine fulfilled this requirement. At the end of 2022 – early 2023, new legislation was adopted to launch open and transparent competitions for CCU judges. Candidates are now reviewed by the Advisory Group of Experts (AGE), composed of three Ukrainian and three international experts, with the internationals holding a decisive vote. This gave real experts in constitutional law a genuine chance to be selected without political interference.
However, launching this new, complex but essential procedure required time. Although competitions under the new rules began at the end of 2023, by the time of this publication, only three judges had been appointed through this process (Oleksandr Vodiannikov, Serhiy Riznyk, Alla Oliinyk).
Six out of 18 seats remain vacant. Responsibility is evenly split: two candidates to be appointed by the President, two by Parliament, and two by the Congress of Judges.
While the President and Congress of Judges have shown some (albeit slow) progress — for example, on July 3, 2025, the President appointed Oleksandr Vodiannikov — Parliament has stalled. Interviews with AGE-recommended candidates are not being held, and the Legal Policy Committee systematically avoids consideration. The public reason: AGE allegedly failed to provide requested documents related to candidates’ practical tasks.
AGE maintains that the Committee lacks authority to request or verify such documents since AGE has already conducted the full evaluation and submitted all necessary candidate files back in February 2025, which should suffice for appointments.
As for the President, appointing just one judge out of three possible restored quorum and allowed the Court to resume functioning. However, the President can and must fully fill his constitutional quota.
The Congress of Judges has launched a new competition after the previous one failed, expected to conclude by year’s end.
A deferred threat. The current 12-judge composition is temporary. Terms of other judges will expire soon (e.g., Judge Horodovenko’s in November 2026). Without filling all six vacancies now, the Court may lose capacity as early as next year.
Legal uncertainty. Imagine Parliament adopts a controversial law limiting your constitutional rights, such as property or free speech. Under martial law, this risk is even higher. The CCU is the only body that can halt such a law. If paralyzed, citizens cannot defend their rights.
Inefficiency. The absence of just one judge — due to illness or travel — can halt the Grand Chamber’s work, slowing down the Court’s response to major political and social issues.
An obstacle to EU integration. While a formal quorum exists, the inability to adopt decisions on constitutional order, fundamental rights, and freedoms shows that rule of law is not functioning fully. Effective CCU operation is key to Ukraine’s development as a European legal state. Brussels’ position is consistent: the European Commission’s 2024 report again calls on Ukraine to “continue to fill judicial vacancies in the Constitutional Court.” The word “continue” is a diplomatic but firm reminder that Ukraine failed to do its homework in the previous reporting period.
The current state of the Constitutional Court is a clear signal to all branches of government: do not stop halfway. The RPR Coalition once again calls on the Verkhovna Rada and the President to fulfill their constitutional duty under Article 148 and appoint CCU judges.
Implementing the EU’s requirements goes beyond adopting laws; it requires effective implementation and final appointment decisions after open, transparent, and competitive processes.
Only then can Ukraine achieve true institutional resilience of its sole constitutional jurisdiction body and meaningful reform implementation — key to Ukraine’s full EU integration.
This article was published under the project “Democratic Integration, Resilience, and Engagement” (Ukraine-DARE), implemented by Democracy Reporting International (DRI) in cooperation with the Reanimation Package of Reforms Coalition (RPR) and the Centre of Policy and Legal Reform, with financial support from the Federal Foreign Office of Germany. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Foreign Office of Germany.
