Prevention and counteraction to corruption in the judicial system of Ukraine: international standards and regulatory regulation

The article clarifies international standards and regulatory regulation of preventing and countering corruption in the judicial system. The system of international acts in the field of preventing and countering corruption is determined; the features of regulatory regulation of preventing and countering corruption in the judicial system of Ukraine are clarified and some ways of its improvement are identified. As a result of the study, it was established that the basis of international legal regulation and legislation of Ukraine on the prevention of corruption and corruption-related offenses in the judicial system are the provisions of such international regulatory documents as – the Civil Convention on Combating Corruption, the UN Convention against Corruption, the Criminal Convention on Combating Corruption (and the Additional Protocol thereto); laws of Ukraine - the Laws of Ukraine «On Prevention of Corruption», «On the Principles of State Anti-Corruption Policy for 2021-2025», «On the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine», «On the Judiciary and the Status of a Judge», the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses; subordinate legislation - decisions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, orders and explanations of the National Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, on the features of the application of anti-corruption legislation; acts of doctrinal interpretation of legislation - decisions of higher judicial instances (the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court) on the application of anti-corruption legislation in the process of considering cases of administrative or criminal corruption offenses. It has been established that the main shortcomings of national legislation on the prevention of corruption and corruption-related offenses in the activities of a judge (court) are the following: a large number of anti-corruption regulatory acts that use the same concepts but with a slightly different interpretation; hasty and inconsistent adoption of amendments and additions to them; ineffectiveness of Anti-Corruption Programs, most of the provisions of which remain unimplemented due to the lack of either financial support or effective implementation mechanisms; lack of systematization of recommendations on the application of anti-corruption norms; lack of mandatory use of case law of higher courts on the application of anti-corruption legislation in the activities of courts.