Candidates for the positions of judges of general courts of appeal with civil specialization, who performed a practical assignment on February 4, 2025 within the framework of the relevant competition, applied to open letter to the High Qualification Commission of Judges due to difficult tasks, which only 18% of judges managed to complete.
In their letter, the candidates for judicial positions drew attention to the unequal conditions in which the group of candidates who performed the practical task on February 4 found themselves - the specific legal position of the Supreme Court, which was used to create the model task, was simply not in the list of cases published in advance by the HQCJ that needed to be used for preparation.
Because of this, the candidates had to focus not so much on the legal positions of the Supreme Court determined by the HQCJ, but rather try to solve a rather complex task on their own.
Therefore, the candidates ask the HQCJ not only to provide the opportunity to retake the practical assignment, but also to publish ALL model court cases that were provided to the participants of the civil specialization competition and ALL decisions written by the candidates.
Text of the open letter
A task always seems "easy" if you know the correct answer in advance.
On April 17, 2025, the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine adopted a decision to approve the coded results of the practical task completed on February 3–7, 10 and 11, 2025 (civil specialization), February 12–14 and 17–21, 2025 (criminal specialization) by candidates for vacant positions of judges in general courts of appeal within the framework of the competition announced by the Commission's decision of September 14, 2023 No. 94/zp-23.
According to our calculations, the total percentage of candidates who did not score a passing score (excluding the group from February 4, 2025) is 18%. The same figure among candidates who took the exam on February 4, 2025 is 86%.
We are convinced that the abnormally low results recorded on this particular day cannot be explained by the fact that the participants on this day simply “didn’t cope with an easy task” or that “this happens”. The statistical indicators on this day obviously do not fit into the graph of a Gaussian normal distribution. However, the situation becomes clearer if we note that all the candidates on this day were “knocked down” by the second model case – the scores for it were significantly lower than the scores for the first, and did not allow the candidates to score the required passing score in total.
With this letter, we want to draw attention to the unequal conditions in which the participants of the competition for the courts of appeal found themselves, who had to complete the practical assignment on February 4, 2025. The mistakes made by the Commission on that day led to the fact that the group of 58 candidates found themselves in a significantly worse position compared to other participants in the competition.
First, approximately 1,5 hours after the start of the exam, a member of the HQCJ, Serhiy Chumak, entered the hall and reported that there were errors in the descriptive and motivational parts of the practical task 1 we were performing, which was later reported in a report.
This technical error concerned the date of a key circumstance in the case. Since the case was designed for the court to apply the statute of limitations, the typo regarding dates in this case cannot be considered insignificant.
The candidates were not compensated for the one and a half hours that passed before the error was corrected, which violated the principle of equality of candidates.
However, another mistake made in Model Case No. 2 is more significant.
On August 21, 2024, the HQCJ decided to publish the List of court cases, on the basis of which practical tasks for the upcoming exam were developed. The list of these cases can be found here.
Everyone welcomed this step by the HQCJ, as it indicated the openness of the Commission and ensured equality for all exam participants both in terms of preparation and in terms of performing practical tasks.
However, on February 4, 2025, exam participants were given a practical task developed based on court case No. 686/30591/21, which was not on the above-mentioned List.
As a result, the level of complexity of the practical task for our group was significantly higher than for the rest of the participants in the civil specialization competition. While other participants saw a familiar case as a model case on the exam (where the factual circumstances, subject matter, and grounds of the claim corresponded to one of the cases from the list for preparation), the participants who took the exam on February 4 did not have such a privilege.
From the point of view of testology, these are fundamentally different cognitive skills that were supposed to be used by the participants of the competition. In one case, it is mostly knowledge (memory) and understanding (provided that the case on the exam corresponds to one of the lists), while in the other, it is analysis, synthesis, and a creative approach to solving an unfamiliar problem (in the case when the examinee sees the case for the first time). The need to use certain cognitive skills determines the level of complexity of the exam.
Thus, for the participants who had to perform the practical task on February 4, 2025, the task turned out to be significantly more difficult, as it required a creative approach and the use of higher-order cognitive skills to solve a previously unfamiliar problem. The identification of the legal position of the Supreme Court, which, in essence, would serve as a "key" to solving the task, under such conditions was significantly more difficult, given that the factual circumstances of the case did not correspond to any of the cases that were declared by the Commission as those that would be used in the development of model court decisions for the qualification exam. This put the mentioned participants at a disadvantage compared to others.
Finally, if we get to the heart of the matter, it can hardly be called "easy."
The case involved a complex combination of different legal relationships (family, credit, security, relations within the framework of enforcement proceedings and auction). Accordingly, the case was filled with a whole range of factual circumstances (marriage, acquisition of property by spouses, credit agreement, surety agreement, mortgage agreement, court decision on debt collection, enforcement proceedings, seizure of property, replacement of a party to enforcement proceedings, electronic auctions, etc.), a significant number of various claims (recognition of the unlawfulness and cancellation of the resolution of the state bailiff, the act of the state bailiff, invalidation of the certificate of transfer of property to the collector, recognition of ownership).
Just reading the text of this model decision took a lot of time (we suggest that the reader make sure of this by reading the decision of the court of first instance in case No. 686/30591/21, which was the basis for the model decision).
The model court decision was supplemented with a significant number of substantive law norms (we recall that in accordance with clause 2.8. of the Regulation on the procedure for passing the qualification exam and the methodology for evaluating candidates, approved by the decision of the High Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine of June 19, 2024 No. 185/zp-24, the model court decision contains a partial motivational part). In this regard, it is not entirely clear how the saturation of the decision with substantive law norms is consistent with the position of the HQCJ that the model case contained a procedural task.
And the most important thing is the conclusion based on the results of the case.
The case raises a complex legal issue: the priority of one or another ground for refusing a claim (absence of a violated right, inappropriate defendant, inappropriate method of defense).
According to the HQCJ, this is "a simple procedural task for the proper defendant." However, there are other options for solving it. In particular, due to the absence of a violated right, as provided for in case No. 910/6642/18, or due to an improper method of protection, as in case No. 200/606/18). By the way, the latter was on the list.
But if the essence of the exam was precisely to "get" to exactly the conclusion and with the same motivation that the Supreme Court used in the real case, taken as the basis for the model case, then under such conditions it is difficult to overestimate the advantage that the opportunity to know in advance the legal position of the Supreme Court in this particular case gives. Which brings us back to argument number one - on February 04, 2025, the participants of the competition found themselves in an unequal position compared to the others.
Is society interested in holding a competition for the positions of judges of the Court of Appeal under such conditions?
Does society need judges elected to office under such conditions?
We believe that the exclusion of case No. 686/30591/21 is a regrettable mistake, not intentional, by the Commission. And we sincerely hope that the Commission will find the courage to admit it and correct it.
In view of this, we call on the HQCJ:
Publish ALL model court cases that were provided to participants in the civil specialization competition and written by participants in decisions so that society in general and the legal community in particular have the opportunity to verify whether the task of February 04, 2025 was indeed "easy" and whether its conditions were indeed developed based on the List of Court Case Numbers that the Commission published.
To cancel all its decisions that were made as a result of and in connection with the performance on February 04, 2025 by the participants of the competition of practical tasks in civil specialization who did not receive a passing score.
To appoint a re-taking of the practical task for exam participants who took it on 04.02.2025/XNUMX/XNUMX and will submit applications to the HQCJ about this.
Thank you for being with us! Monobank for the support of the ElitExpert editorial office.
