Features of the Disciplinary Liability of Investigating Judges in Ukraine

Abstract

Improper performance by an investigating judge in their duties while exercising judicial control in criminal proceedings poses a significant threat to the effective administration of justice and undermines public confidence in the judiciary. In this context, disciplinary liability serves as a key mechanism to ensure the proper fulfillment of judicial duties and to uphold the judiciary's authority. This article aims to reveal the specific features of disciplinary liability of investigating judges in Ukraine based on an analysis of current legislation and the law enforcement practice of the High Council of Justice from 2020–2025. Methods. The study employs system analysis, classification and grouping methods, and statistical analysis. Results. Based on the examination of applicable legislation, the disciplinary case law of the High Council of Justice (2020–2025), and relevant international legal standards, the article identifies the key grounds for holding investigating judges disciplinarily liable. It highlights the principal problems in applying disciplinary mechanisms in this domain. Conclusions. Disciplinary liability of an investigating judge arises from acts committed while exercising judicial control in criminal proceedings, particularly for violations related to improper performance of duties when reviewing motions, authorizing covert investigative actions, and resolving complaints against actions or inaction of inquirers, investigators, or prosecutors. Liability also applies in cases of breaches of judicial ethics and the principle of integrity, provided that significant adverse consequences have occurred and a causal link exists between the misconduct and its effects. Disciplinary liability is a crucial tool for ensuring accountability and proper conduct by investigating judges; however, its application must be grounded in a balanced approach that respects judicial independence and responsibility. The further development of this institution should be based on a comprehensive and systematic approach, including improvements to the legal framework through the unambiguous formulation of grounds for disciplinary action, elimination of legal uncertainty via systematic codification, consistency, and coherence in disciplinary practice, and adherence to international standards on judicial independence and accountability.