Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019

Corresponding author:
1 Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine.
E-mail: m.vilgushynskyi@ukr.net
2 Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ukraine.
E-mail: moskvichlida@gmail.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2019-5-4-59-73

thE right of thE public on publicly hEard and opEn
criminal procEEdings in thE contExt of prEvEnting
corruption and Economic crimE by Judicial powEr

mykhailo vilhushynskyi1, lidiia moskvych2

abstract. The purpose of the paper is the system analysis of legal, organizational, and procedural mechanisms of
the realization of the right of the public and mass media on their participation in transparent and open criminal
proceedings in the context of preventing corruption and economic crimes within the system of judicial power, as well
as the development of scientifically substantiated recommendations for the improvement of the current legislation of
Ukraine on the judicial system taking into account the most advanced international practices. The interconnectedness
of effective implementation of the principles of transparency and openness of criminal proceedings with the
restoration of trust in the judicial system from the side of civil society has been substantiated. Methodology. To solve
the tasks set in the dissertation, the authors have used a complex of general and special scientific methods. Logical
and cognitive methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, and deduction) made it possible to study general conditions
for the organization and procedure of the implementation of the principles of transparency and openness during the
cassation appeal of decisions in criminal proceedings. The system and structural method has assisted to determine the
essential and content characteristics of the principles of transparency and openness within criminal proceedings, as
well as to reveal their significance and correlation while ensuring the judiciary by the cassation court. The formal and
legal method made it possible to reveal the proper legal procedure for implementing the principles of transparency and
openness during the criminal proceedings by the cassation court. Modelling method allowed determining the ways to
improve the legislation on the judiciary and criminal procedural legislation in part to more effective implementation
of the principles of transparency and openness in the criminal procedure of Ukraine. The comparative and legal
method was used in clarifying the relationship between the levels of domestic and international legal regulation of the
implementation of the principles of transparency and openness of criminal proceedings. Experimental methods were
used to construct grounded theoretical and applied provisions that adequately reflect the features and interrelations of
the processes of implementing the principles of transparency and openness within criminal proceedings, confirmation
or refutation of certain concepts, views, their examination by means of thought or subject experimentation based
on practice criteria. Result of solving this purpose is to form the author’s understanding that members of the public
(the general public) and mass media cannot be holders of jurisdictional rights, that is, those rights that are exercised
in the course of court proceedings by involved persons as a result of their criminal procedural status (parties and
other participants in criminal proceedings). That is, members of the public and the general public, as well as members
of mass media, who are not entitled to the right for public court proceedings but are subjects to the right to obtain
information about public court proceedings, the administration of transparent and open justice. Practical implications.
Ensuring reliable public control over the judiciary through the widespread use of mass media will effectively prevent
corruption and commission of economic crimes by the judges. Value/originality. Amendments and alterations to the
national legislation on the judiciary and the Criminal Procedural Code have been offered, which would facilitate the
more effective implementation of the right to transparent and open court proceedings by the public and mass media,
ensure public control over the judiciary in the exercise of its procedural activities, and guarantee the right of every one
to obtain information on the administration of justice in line with European standards.

key words: publicity principle, transparency principle, corruption, economic crimes, criminal judicial system,
criminal procedure.

JEl classification: K13, K14, D73

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019

1. Introduction
Forming the general idea of the role and place of the

public in implementing the principles of transparency
and openness in the provision of criminal justice, one
must proceed from the assumption that the right to
public justice, as well as the constitutional right to judicial
protection, to its immediate implementation, exists as
a general relationship between the state and individuals
and is the constitutional and legal relationship. The
content of this relation is the state’s duty to create the
necessary conditions for the transparent and open court
proceedings, which include: adoption of legislation,
which forms the basis for the implementation of the
principles of transparency and openness, including the
consolidation of the right of any person to be present
at an open court hearing; elaboration of courts acts,
which determine the procedure of unimpeded access
of any person to an open court hearing; the possibility
for citizens to receive objective and reliable information
about the activity of specific courts and the functioning
of the judicial system in the whole; creation and
improvement of the system of placing court decisions in
the Internet network and ensuring the access of a wide
range of people to these decisions; placement of courts
in buildings that meet modern requirements for the
execution of justice and provide the opportunity for all
those wishing to be present at an open court hearing
(Tatsii, Hroshevyi, Kaplina, Shylo, 2013).

According to sociological surveys, in particular, the
Global Corruption Barometer from Transparency
International and the Gallup International Association,
Ukrainians consider judicial power to be the most
corrupted area (66 percent). Similar results have been
repeatedly confirmed by the studies conducted by the
Ukrainian Centre for Economic and Political Studies
named after Oleksander Razumkov: Ukrainians
consider judicial power to be the most corrupt, and
about 50 percent of those polled believe that corruption
covered everything within judicial power. And
according to the World Justice Project (Rule of Law
Index), Ukraine in the field of “lack of corruption” in
the judicial system constantly occupies the last place
among the analysed countries. According to the Court
Index defined by the European Business Association,
judicial power discredited itself among the business
environment, since the estimate of judicial proceedings
in Ukraine is negative according to all the components
of the index (Fluri and Badrak, 2016).

One of the main causes for the destruction of
the judicial power, according to which Ukraine is
not able to recover by this time, is judicial reform
unsuccessfully implemented in 2010: the adoption
of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and Status of
Judges” negatively affected the agencies of judicial self-
government – they became completely dependent on
political power. The political principles of the formation

of the Supreme Council of Justice and unambiguously
formulated grounds for bringing to disciplinary
liability have led to the fact that judges have actually
lost the guarantees of independence of their activities.
The mechanism of selecting judges was characterized
by abuses by the authorities responsible for this
procedure (Fluri and Badrak, 2016).

Therefore, the first step in reforming the judicial
power was the adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On
Restoring Confidence to the Judicial Power in Ukraine”
(Law, 2014) on April 8, 2014, which contributed to the
creation of legal preconditions for the self-purification
of the judicial power with the direct participation of the
public.

Over the past 15 years, after the so-called “small judicial
reform”, probably, no other principles of the criminal
procedure have undergone such a transformation in
Ukraine as the principles of transparency and openness
of court proceedings and its full recording by technical
means. Moreover, the main innovations were related not
so much to the normative consolidation of the content
of these principles of criminal proceedings but with the
emergence of new forms of their implementation.

In particular, one can agree with the opinion of
V. V. Korol and distinguish three main stages of modern
reform of the principles of transparency and publicity of
court proceedings (Korol, 2015).

The first stage is related to the adoption of the Law of
Ukraine “On Access to Court Decisions” (Law, 2005),
according to which the State Judicial Administration of
Ukraine ensures the maintenance of the Unified State
Register of Court Decisions.

The creation of an official web portal “Judicial
Power” can certainly be considered as the second stage.
This portal contains information on the list of cases
to be considered; on the list of appeals (cassation)
complaints; regarding the stages of court cases and
reports on automated distribution, etc. This electronic
resource was created based on the Regulation on the
organization of access to public information held by
the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine developed
in compliance with the Law of Ukraine “On Access to
Public Information” (Order, 2011).

The third stage is related to the activities of new non-
governmental organizations of control, in particular,
public organizations, whose purpose is to facilitate
the speeding up judicial reform, increase the level of
transparency of the judiciary and restore the trust of our
citizens to the judicial power. The regulatory framework
for the activities of such organizations is the laws of
Ukraine: “On Information” (Law, 2011), “On Restoring
Trust in the Judicial Power in Ukraine” (Law, 2014),
“On Ensuring the Right to a Fair Trial” (Law, 2015),
“On the Prevention of Corruption” (Law, 2014), “On
the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” as amended on
June 2, 2016 (Law, 2016). However, it must be admitted
that the adoption of new legislation on the judiciary

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
and the status of judges has not solved the problem of
corruption in the judicial system yet.

Problems of the participation of public and mass
media in criminal proceedings, taking into account the
principles of transparency and openness, were studied in
the scientific works of such national and foreign scholars
as: A. D. Boikov, L. I. Budnikova, D. A. Holovanov,
Yu. A. Horinov, I. S. Hritsenko, Yu. M. Hroshevyi,
V. V. Korol, A. A. Levy, Z. V. Makarova, V. T. Maliarenko,
O. O. Ovsiannikova, A. P. Petryshyn, I. L. Petrukhin,
M. A. Pohoretskyi, S. V. Praskova, S. V. Prylutskyi,
P. I. Repeshko, A. H. Richter, S. V. Romanov,
Yu. S. Sida, O. V. Smirnov, O. H. Yanovska, and others.
At the same time, the issue of public control in the courts
of all instances and the implementation of the relevant
provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and
Status of Judges” (Law, 2016) and the Art. 27 of the
Criminal Procedural Code (CPC) of Ukraine (Code,
2012), has not been adequately covered in the special
scientific literature yet.

2. Public control over the judiciary –
an instrument for combating corruption

The right to a transparent and open trial in a particular
criminal proceeding is transformed into the subjective
right of the participants of the process, the realization
of which depends on the right of representatives of the
public and mass media.

At the same time, the right to a public trial, being
a subjective reflection of the constitutional principle of
publicity of justice, has its own content and subjects of
implementation. At the same time, the content of this
right is closely linked to the role played by a person in
a particular court proceeding – whether it is a party to
the process or a representative of the public, an outside
listener.

Therefore, the specificity of the subject structure is due
to the fact that, based on the principle of the transparency
and openness of court proceedings, the representatives
of the public have the right to participate in the process
for the purpose of exercising public control over the
administration of justice (Petryshyn, 2017).

At the same time, the paradox is that public
representatives, as the main recipients of the principles
of transparency and openness, are devoid of the
mechanisms for their protection since only the parties
and other participants in the criminal process have the
right to appeal against court decisions made on the
basis of court hearing conducted in violation of these
principles.

However, the peculiarity of the realization of the
right to the transparent and open criminal proceedings
is the inability of its carriers to abandon it since this
right equally belongs to both parties of the process
(Petryshyn, 2017). Thus, the parties, other participants
in the criminal proceedings, representatives of the

public, the media in the same trial have different interests
and reasons for refusing to the publicly heard trial.

The right to a public trial is an important component
of the implementation of the principles of transparency
and openness of the criminal process, and therefore,
is the basis for the realization of the rights of society
members, including representatives of mass media, to
participate in court proceedings as third-party observers
(the general public). That is, the rights of the public to
access an open trial are derived from the right of the
parties to the public (transparent and open) judicial
proceedings.

Moreover, representatives of the public (the general
public) and mass media not being the parties to the
criminal process, cannot be the bearers of jurisdictional
rights, i.e., those rights that are implemented in the
course of judicial proceedings by the persons involved in
it as a result of their criminal procedural status (parties
and other participants in the criminal proceedings).

The principles of transparency and openness for
the public are important prerequisites for exercising
control over judicial power. In turn, public control is
one of the ways for citizens to participate in the state
administration. Therefore, summarizing the normative
requirements of the legislation on the judicial system
and the current CPC of Ukraine, the publicity and
openness of court proceedings for persons who are
not participants in the criminal process, include:
1) the right to receive information on the date, time
and place of trials; 2) the right to equal access to the
court building, the office, the courtroom; 3) the right to
attend a public trial, including the right to be present at
the announcement of court decisions; 4) the right to get
acquainted with court decisions; 5) the right to record
the content and progress of the process in writing or by
audio recording without special court authorization;
6) the right to disseminate information about events that
took place during an open trial to unlimited number of
persons, to reproduce legally, with the observance of the
law, the materials received, to demonstrate and publish
them; 7) the right to public discussion (including in the
mass media), criticism of court decisions and actions
of the court, carried out in the course of open court
proceedings.

Further improvement of the financial control over
the activities of courts and judges is equally important
from the point of view of ensuring the openness of the
judicial system in Ukraine, as rightly pointed out by
M. A. Pohoretskyi and O. H. Yanovska. In particular,
they analyse the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and
Status of Judges” dated from July 7, 2010, No. 2453-VI,
which provided the mandatory publication of copies of
declarations of judges on property, income, expenses,
and financial obligations for the last year on the
official web portal of judicial power of Ukraine (www.
court.gov.ua). The above provision should provide
unhindered access of the public to the aforementioned

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
information about the property of a particular judge
with the purpose of carrying out independent public
control in the field of prevention and counteraction to
corruption. However, on April 24, 2012, the said Law
was amended, according to which judges were no longer
obliged to file a declaration on the property, income,
expenses, and financial obligations for the last year for
publication on the Internet. Such amendments have led
not only to a reduction in the level of financial control
over the activities of courts and judges but also virtually
destroyed the judicial system of Ukraine. Therefore,
we fully share the thoughts of M. A. Pohoretskyi and
O. H. Yanovska that in spite of objectively existing
difficulties, the system of financial control, which
continues to be built, should become an effective
mechanism for preventing corruption in the judicial
system, giving an opportunity to avoid competitive
interests and to ensure the transparency of the activities
of the courts (Pohoretskyi and Yanovska, 2013).

In this context, one should agree with the position
of O. V. Smirnov that the restructuring of the judicial
system in order to maximally bring it closer to its own
people can be a mean of fighting of the most passionate
part of citizens against corruption and an effective way
of upbringing the state apparatus (Smirnov, 2004).
This will make it possible to eliminate socio-political
tensions in society and to take measures to reform the
judicial system in an evolutionary way. In particular,
such measures in line with European standards should
include:
– reduction of the amount of judicial immunity and
providing a judge with only functional immunity
(immunity from charges of actions committed in the
course of performing judicial functions);
– settlement of issues concerning the prevention and
resolution of competitive interests in the activity of
representatives of judicial power;
– determination of the peculiarities of conducting a
special examination of candidates for a judge’s position;
– submission, disclosure (in particular on the Internet),
and monitoring of the reliability of the data of judges’
declarations on property, income, expenses, and
financial obligations;
– conduction of periodic training of judges on the matters
related to standards of counteraction and prevention
of corruption, taking into account them during the
certification of judges (Fluri and Badrak, 2016).

The main place among other components of the
implementation of the principles of transparency and
openness has the right to receive information on the date,
time, and place of trials, which follows from paragraph
2 of the Art. 11 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary
and Status of Judges” (Law, 2016) and paragraph 1 of
the Art. 27 of the CPC of Ukraine (Code, 2012). The
transparency and openness of judicial activity are initial
components, as noted in the legal literature (Leonenko,
Miller, Siryi, Chanhuli, 1993). In this case, the message

must contain a clear indication for the date and place of
the court hearing, that is, the answer to one of the issues
to be resolved in regard to the preparation for a trial
(Korol, 2015).

At the same time, the current CPC of Ukraine does
not fully resolve the issue of the forms for notification
about designated criminal proceedings. Thus, Part
1 of the Art. 135 of the CPC of Ukraine regulates only
the procedure for calling the participants of criminal
proceedings: “A person is called to an investigator,
a prosecutor, an investigative judge, a court by handing
the call for a summons, sending it by mail, e-mail or
facsimile, making a call by telephone or by a telegram”.

A similar provision is contained in clause 16.3 of the
Instruction on record-keeping in local general courts,
appellate courts of regions, appellate courts of Kyiv and
Sevastopol, the Court of Appeal of the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea, and the Supreme Specialized Court
of Ukraine for the consideration of civil and criminal
cases, approved by the order of the State Judicial
Administration of Ukraine dated December 17, 2013,
No. 173 (Order, 2013).

However, neither the CPC of Ukraine nor the above-
mentioned Instruction on the record-keeping stipulates
the procedure for notifying citizens who are not
participants in criminal proceedings, about the time and
place of a trial. Therefore, we fully support the suggestion
of V. V. Korol that the content of notification on criminal
proceedings, intended for the court hearing of the relevant
instance requires filling of such a gap and its legislative
affirmation in the CPC of Ukraine (Korol, 2015).

An innovative step in achieving transparency and
openness of court proceedings is that citizens who want
to familiarize themselves with criminal proceedings that
are to be heard in court, in a matter of minutes, without
leaving their home, can find out the date, place and time
of the court hearing on the official web portal “Judiciary
of Ukraine”.

Such a network information resource greatly
enhances the possibility of implementing the principles
of transparency and openness in the field of criminal
justice since nowadays a significant part of Ukrainian
citizens have access to the Internet. The provisions of
Part 1 of the Art. 27 of the CPC of Ukraine to provide
information about the time and place of a trial are
realized through the web portal “Judiciary of Ukraine”.
Therefore, we fully agree with the idea that the content
of such notifications, as well as the procedure of their
placement on the web portal (through the automated
system of court documents), should be regulated at the
level of law (Korol, 2015).

This allows obtaining the necessary information about
trials in criminal proceedings at any time convenient
for citizens but not only during the court hours.
For example, the information on the list of criminal
proceedings (cases) for consideration in the Cassation
Criminal Court is available at: https://supreme.court.

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
gov.ua/supreme/gromadyanam/kks/ and by calling
the contact centre 0-800-501-492. Besides, the official
electronic address of the Cassation Criminal Court –
ksk@supreme.court.gov.ua – operates for the purpose
of sending correspondence.

However, there is a need in the printed version of
the list of cases for consideration, which is posted in
the court building for the participants of the criminal
proceedings and other persons who wish to be present
at the trial. The legal literature repeatedly puts forward
propositions that we fully support, about the need to
post an announcement (lists of criminal proceedings)
from the outside of the court building (Boikov, 1989;
Korol, 2015; Makarova, 1993; Petrukhin, 1981;
Shushanashvili, 1969).

According to V. T. Maliarenko, the open nature of
a trial on criminal proceedings in the courts of all
instances also means that all procedural actions must be
carried out by the court at open doors, except for the
meeting of judges while deciding a sentence or making
some decisions (Maliarenko, 1998). Therefore, for the
proper implementation of the principles of transparency
and openness of litigation, the rule that a judgment
is publicly proclaimed (Part 7 of the Art. 27, and
Part 1 of the Art. 376 of the Criminal Procedural Code
of Ukraine) is of paramount importance.

In terms of open trial, the abovementioned norm provides
the disclosure of the results of the court’s work, which takes
place in the counselling room, and hence the integrity of
the trial for accessible perception by all those present in
the courtroom (Korol, 2015). Therefore, the activity of the
court for the administration of justice, due to its transparent
and open nature, is under the control of public opinion, the
public. Public opinion assesses the verdict and the internal
conviction of judges in terms of their compliance with the
requirements of the law, norms of morality (Korol, 2003).
That is why, according to Yu. M. Hroshevyi, approving the
verdict of the court, considering it to be fair, public opinion
strengthens the educational effect of criminal proceedings
(Hroshevyi, 1972).

The legal basis for access to court decisions is the Laws
of Ukraine “On Access to Court Decisions” (Law, 2006)
and “On Implementation of Judgments and Practices of
the European Court of Human Rights” (Law, 2006).
In accordance with the provisions establishing the
availability of court decisions, everyone has the right
to have access to court decisions in accordance with
the procedure established by the law. The State Judicial
Administration of Ukraine ensures the maintenance of
the Unified State Register of Court Decisions in order
to have access to court decisions of the courts of general
jurisdiction. Thus, the Procedure for maintaining the
Unified State Register of Court Decisions was approved
by the decision of the Supreme Council of Justice dated
April 19, 2018, No. 1200/0/15-18 (Decision, 2018).

Court decisions registered in this Register are open
for free round-the-clock access on the official web

portal of the judicial power of Ukraine. The opinion
of O. O. Ovsiannikova is quite right, in the context of
the subject matter of the research, who emphasizes that
only those decisions that have come into force have
legal effect to be published in the Register. The text
of such a decision should indicate whether an appeal
or cassation was filed against this decision, what the
grounds are and what decision was taken by a higher
court. Regarding the inclusion of all intermediate acts
of the judicial power into the Register, such acts cannot
be of interest to users of the Register since they do not
affect the results of the trial and judicial statistics, and
therefore, there is no need for it. At the same time, the
issue about the terms of preserving court decisions in
the Register remains relevant (Ovsiannikova, 2009).

At the same time, one should admit that the Register
is rather inconvenient to use since in order to find
a solution, it is necessary to know precisely the court
that passed it, the date of the decision or the registration
number in court or the Article of the Criminal Code of
Ukraine, according to which a person was convinced.
The lists provided by the search system do not specify
a category of the case. If it is necessary to get acquainted
with the court practice of a certain category, users (both
a judge and a regular citizen) are forced to search through
all the decisions. Considering the number of courts in
Ukraine and the amount of cases they consider daily,
it becomes unrealistic. Obviously, it will be necessary
to classify the decisions in the Register, to improve
the technical possibilities of their search according to
different criteria.

A separate procedure for ensuring the availability
of court decisions has been established in relation to
decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in
the case against Ukraine, which found violations of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (Convention, 1950), decisions
on just satisfaction in cases against Ukraine, decisions
on final settlement agreement in cases against Ukraine.

One of the most striking examples of effective public
control in the field of legal proceedings is the activity
of the public organization “Open Court”. Its members
(activists) on a voluntary basis carry out video and audio
recordings in the courts, professional processing and
installation of recorded material, as well as its analysis
and review. The implementation of this project became
possible only since March 28, 2015 – with the entry into
force of the new Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Right
to a Fair Trial” (Zakon Ukrainy vid 12 liutoho 2015 roku
№ 192-VIII), which guarantees the possibility of taking
photos, video and audio recordings in the courtroom
using a portable video, audio equipment without
obtaining a separate court authorization. The material
shot is broadcast on the website of the “Open Court”
video channel, where the video file is formed and the
analysis and provision of legal assessment of court cases
are realized, to the professional level of participants in

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
a trial (a judge, a prosecutor, a lawyer). The purpose
of this project was to increase the trust of citizens and
strengthen the authority of the court, increase the
professional level of judges, lawyers and prosecutors
(Korol, 2015).

It is also important that this organization can work on
citizens’ requests for assistance provided on a royalty-
free basis. The public initiative of the “Open Court”
is expressed, in particular, in the creation of versatile
special projects, namely: “Open Court Reporter”,
“Loud Deed”, “Judicial Raid”, “Judge-Antihero”.
The uniqueness of this project is underlined by the fact
that no other European state has the same practice.
Ukraine is actually a kind of experimental site in this
area. The project partners from the European Union and
the United States regard the “Open Court” activity as
a key element in combating corruption and injustice in
the courts and believe that Ukraine’s success can serve
as an example for the application of such a mechanism
in other countries of the world.

Many NGOs and projects are based on international
support and assistance. One such project in the field
of interaction between the public and the judiciary is
the “Fair Justice” project, funded by the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID), and
has been operating in Ukraine since October 2011. The
project aims to improve legislation, complete judicial
reform and improve judicial practice. Improving judicial
practice means raising the transparency of the court and
the trust of the community. The main task of the project
is the implementation of the laws of Ukraine: “On
Purification of Power” (Law, 2014) and “On Restoring
Confidence in the Judiciary” (Law, 2014). In particular,
the “Fair Justice” organization is one of the founders of
the Internet platform “Electronic Court” (Korol, 2015).

The Public Council for Integrity is a very effective
project of public control over the activities of courts and
judges in Ukraine. In January 2019, this Council approved
the indicators for determining the inconsistency of judges
(candidates for a position of a judge) with the criteria of
integrity and professional ethics. The press release of the
Council states that the document was developed based
on the best international practices in the field of judicial
integrity and ethics, as set out in the Bangalore Principles
of Judicial Conduct, their comments, recommendations
of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe,
the conclusions of the Venice Commission and the
Advisory Council of European Judges, and also taking
into account the provisions of the Code of Judicial Ethics,
the Guidelines of the Public Council of International
Experts on the assessment of the integrity, knowledge
and practical skills of candidates for positions of judges
of the Supreme Anticorruption Court (The Center for
Training Judges, 2019).

Indicators are also based on previous practice of the
Public Council of Integrity and take into account the
results of their agreement with the High Qualifications

Commission of Judges of Ukraine. The content of the
document takes into account the views of experts from
the Council of Europe, the European Union, and the
USAID “Fair Justice” program.

This list of indicators of compliance with the criteria
of integrity is indicative and cannot be interpreted
as exhaustive (in particular, the criteria of integrity
include: independence, impartiality, honesty and
integrity, ethical standards, equality, and diligence). The
list of indicators will be replenished during the work
of the Public Council of Integrity. The Public Council
of Integrity will also rely on the practice of the Public
Council of International Experts.

We should distinguish the following several indicators
demonstrating discrepancy to the criterion of honesty
and integrity of a judge (candidate for a judge’s position)
and can testify to corruption:
– a judge (candidate for a judge’s position) deliberately
or as a result of obviously negligent attitude towards
the performance of his duties has reported unreliable
(including incomplete) information in the declaration of
integrity, for example, concealed information about the
offense, manifestation of unfair behaviour, interference
with the activity of a judge, etc.;
– a judge (candidate for a judge’s position) deliberately
or as a result of obviously negligent attitude towards
the performance of his duties has reported unreliable
(including incomplete) information in the declaration
of family ties, for example, concealed a family member,
a close relative or a person with whom there were
competitive interests or who made dubious gifts or
who received significant income from a dubious origin
with the participation of the declarant or has a property
relationship with the declarant or a person and the
declarant have mutual existing obligations, etc.;
– a judge (candidate for a judge’s position) did not
report the existence of competitive interests and/or did
not take other measures to prevent it (Smirnov).

At the same time, “transparency of justice” is a special
problem since it has not only legal but also, above all,
political character. The state and civil society have
not become equal partners yet, but only intend to
become them. Therefore, we are fully convinced of
the correctness of the position of I. S. Hrytsenko and
S. V. Prylutskyi, that the judiciary is not fully prepared for
such a perception of the tasks of justice yet (Hrytsenko
and Prylutskyi, 2015).

Publicity or openness of justice is a much deeper
concept than a mere public and open trial or public
announcement of a sentence. Essentially, it is the
priority of civil society over the state in legal proceedings
(Smirnov, 2003).

It is the search for a balance between the state and
civil society that encourages such mechanisms of
organization of judicial power that will reflect their
joint compromise. We believe that such a compromise
between the state and civil society in matters of

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
organization of judicial power and the administration of
justice can be realized, first of all, in the form of active
civilian control.

Legal and social practices have developed certain
forms of control of the society over justice: publicity
of the procedure of legal proceedings; democratic
procedure for the formation of the judicial system and
the judiciary; public awareness about the mechanism of
functioning of the judiciary, the decisions it has made,
the purpose and personal qualities of its representatives,
as well as the publicity and openness of all these issues in
the framework of public discussion (Tatsii, Hroshevyi,
Kaplina, Shylo, 2013). Thus, public control over the
judiciary should be carried out through the openness of
the justice process (transparency and openness of legal
proceedings), the availability of mass media to judicial
information and its objective coverage.

Taken together, this forms openness and transparency of
justice. Therefore, as O. O. Ovsiannikova rightly focuses,
the transparency of judicial power is a necessary condition
for effective public control (Ovsiannikova, 2008).

The duty of the court to notify the case in this aspect
is relevant, and the open nature of the court proceedings
must be enshrined in the procedural law of Ukraine in
accordance with clause 1 of the Art. 6 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (Convention, 1950; Ovsiannikova, 2009).

The new wording of Part 4 of the Art. 11 of the Law
of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and Status of Judges” (Law,
2016) stipulates that the participants of the trial, other
persons present in the courtroom, representatives of mass
media may hold a photo, video, and audio recording in
the courtroom with the use of portable video and audio
technical means without obtaining a separate permission
of the court but taking into account restrictions
established by the law. The broadcast of the court
hearing is carried out with the permission of the court.
Conduction in the courtroom of photographing, video
recording, and broadcasting of court hearing should
be carried out without hindering the conduct of the
proceedings and the implementation of their procedural
rights by the participants in the court proceedings (Code,
2012). By introducing the novel about the use of portable
video equipment without the permission of a judge,
the legislator significantly expanded the scope of the
implementation and the principle of publicity of criminal
proceedings. At the same time, Part 6 of the Art. 27 of the
CPC of Ukraine states that everyone who is present in
the courtroom can conduct a transcript, make notes, use
portable audio recorders. Conduction in the courtroom
of photographing, video recording, broadcasting of court
hearing on radio and television, as well as performing
sound recording with the use of stationary equipment,
shall be allowed on the basis of a court order, which
is made taking into account the opinion of the parties
and the possibility of conducting such actions without
prejudice to judicial proceedings. Consequently, there is

a legal conflict, as the CPC of Ukraine explicitly foresees
the use of only portable audio recorders without the
permission of a judge. Therefore, in practice, there were
often situations where judges denied citizens the right
to conduct video filming, referring to procedural law.
And representatives of the public project “Open Court”
argued about the illegality of such court decisions,
referring to the fact that the law on the right to a fair trial
“allows video recording without additional authorization
of the court” (Korol, 2015). Therefore, it would be logical
to introduce norms that would oblige the court to fully
record the trial by technical means, even in the absence
of petitions from the parties in this regard. Moreover, the
mentioned novel of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary
and Status of Judges” and certain directions of activity of
the public project “Open Court” generate a number of
problematic aspects.

One of these aspects, according to V. V. Korol, is
the psychological readiness of both judges and other
participants of criminal proceedings for video shooting.
Thus, the participants in the criminal proceedings
actually become “stars” of the television and the
Internet, and not everyone can cope with such a peculiar
psychological pressure. It is worthy of attention a well-
known example of the judge R . V. Kyrieiev in the so-
called “Gas Case” of Yu. V. Tymoshenko (Korol, 2015).

This issue was raised during the Soviet period, and it
was already emphasized that everyone was individually
concerned with the fact that he was taken to the camera:
there were judges whose video was distracting from
the process, did not make it possible to concentrate all
the attention on the trial and made them think only of
how they looked like (Levi, 1983). Only in 2014, the
National School of Judges of Ukraine began the work
on the professional psychological training of candidates
for the position of a judge, as well as acting judges (there
was the course “Professional psychological adaptation
to judicial activity”). Therefore, we fully share the
opinions of some scholars who consider it necessary
to pay particular attention to the training of judges to
cooperate with mass media representatives and their
(judges) psychological adaptation in order to be in the
focus of journalists and video cameras (Hrytsenko and
Prylutskyi, 2015; Korol, 2015).

In addition, the presence of people with video cameras
(including journalists) during the court hearing may be
the cause of the closed behaviour of a witness, a victim,
an accused, and other participants in the proceedings.
This is due to both the psychological characteristics
of a particular participant in the proceedings, and his
reluctance to widely publicize certain information
(Leonenko, Miller, Siryi, Chanhuli, 1993; Korol, 2015;
Makarova, 1993). Thus, such practically unlimited
possibilities for all those present in open court to freely
pursue photography, video and audio recordings using
portable video and audio equipment can negatively
affect the establishment of truth in the case.

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
Another aspect concerns the organization

of placement of the public, members of public
organizations and media representatives in the
courtroom. Thus, Art. 27 of the CPC of Ukraine states
that the court is obliged to allow all those who wish to
be at the hearing, and this possibility is limited only
to the number of places available to the public. For
example, there are four courtrooms in the Cassation
Criminal Court within the Supreme Court with the
required number of seats, three of which are equipped
with videoconferencing and two of them have places for
the custody of the accused (defendants) and convicts.

However, there is the question: does this act itself
create obstacles to an open court process? Equally
important is the determination of the number of media
representatives allowed for a court hearing. Therefore,
we completely share the warnings of V. V. Korol that
“excessive attention” of journalists can adversely affect
the organization of judicial review, create obstacles in the
implementation of the procedural rights and obligations
by the parties of the proceedings (Korol, 2015).

3. The role of mass media
in ensuring transparent and fair justice

Finally, the media plays an important role in the
relations between judicial power and civil society, as
well as have a great influence on the formation of public
consciousness, public opinion on certain socio-political
phenomena or processes. According to Yu. S. Sida, the
media carry out a socio-judicial role, that is, one way or
another, assign a function of open reflection on certain
aspects of the activity of the court from the point of view
of rights of judgment (Sida, 2005).

At the same time, the media form a public opinion
on the activity of judicial power. And such a public
discussion is an embodiment of the constitutional
principle of freedom of thought and speech and
must meet the requirements of the Art. 34 of the
Constitution of Ukraine (Constitution, 1996). In this
sense, the idea of I. S. Hrytsenko and S. V. Prylutskyi
looks thoughtful that the freedom of the media may
be limited in order to prevent the abuse of freedom
of speech, while not introducing any censorship
(Hrytsenko and Prylutskyi, 2015).

For more meaningful communication between
judicial power and the public, the use of such social
technologies as polling of public opinion is required;
organization and conduction of meetings with the
public; TV performances by “first persons” representing
judicial power of Ukraine; conduction of TV debates;
information impact on citizens through the Internet,
etc. Therefore, we are quite convinced that the ideas of
Yu. S. Sida that the application of these technologies
should enable judicial power to strengthen the system of
state power, increase its authority, support the principle
of public relations (Sida, 2005).

However, in today’s conditions, there is mutual
distrust and suspicion in relations between the media
and judges in our country. This distrust on the part
of judges can also be explained by the hypertrophied
sense of professional sovereignty, an attack on which is
considered inadmissible. In turn, journalists, endowed
with the right to free review and coverage of social
processes in the mass media, cannot tolerate the
restrictions imposed on them in relation to realizing
the right to freely collect and disseminate information
and to have unrestricted access to them (Hrytsenko and
Prylutskyi, 2015).

Therefore, there should be a special emphasis among
other things on such a category of subjects as journalists
and media representatives since they are endowed with
wider rights stipulated to freedom of search, receipt, and
dissemination of information. Therefore, international
documents and practice of the European Court of
Human Rights emphasize that the media have both the
right to provide information and are obliged to do so in
the context of realizing the right of citizens to receive
publicly relevant information.

It is believed that in this case, it is not a matter of duty
as a measure of proper conduct, where there is legal
liability for its failure, but about the moral and political
responsibility of journalists in a democratic state,
conditioned on their professional duty.

Thus, as Yu. S. Sida correctly notes, there is the
transformation of journalists’ freedom in public power,
which is perceived by the court as an attack on the
immunity of the judiciary (Sida, 2005).

At the same time, it is difficult to agree with the position
of those scholars who do not include the principles of
transparency and openness in the content of the broad
public and especially of the media representatives
to inform the public of all that is happening in the
courtroom. Thus, S. V. Praskova notes that “such powers
characterize the movement of information in the middle
of civil society, but on the contrary, it is the element of
the general social phenomenon of publicity, but not the
openness of justice” (Praskova, 2004).

We firmly believe that it is difficult to imagine the
implementation of the principle of transparency of
justice outside the “circulation of information about
justice” in society. The purpose and essence of the
principle of publicity are devoid of any meaning without
informing the broad (unlimited) range of persons
about the functioning of judicial power, bringing the
information (including information about events taking
place during the trial) to representatives of Ukrainian
society. And openness makes it possible to transfer
information from those who “first hand” (directly, while
being in the court) received it, to others, especially
important for the media.

Therefore, will justice be transparent and open, is it
possible to consider these principles implemented, if
the information does not “come” to society? We believe

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
that the answer is obvious to this question since it is
difficult to imagine the observance of the principles
of transparency and openness of justice outside
of the proper circulation of information about the
administration of justice in society. And in this sense, the
opinion of O. P. Petryshyn looks convincing, who noted
that the very dissemination of information through the
media activates (stimulates) the implementation of the
principles of transparency and openness, creates the
necessary conditions for the implementation of public
control over justice (Petryshyn, 2017).

Effective access to information held by judicial
authorities and other subjects is an important
prerequisite for preventing corruption, detecting
and stopping corrupt practices. Information that is
of public interest has particular importance, namely,
information on the use of public funds, the disposal
of state or municipal property, personal income,
property, expenses, and financial obligations of judges
and other public officials of judicial power. Access
to information is a necessary tool for conducting
journalistic investigations, stimulating civic activity
in the anticorruption area (Fluri and Badrak, 2016).
The Law of Ukraine “On Access to Public Information”
has been in force in Ukraine since May 2011, which has
been recognized as one of the best in the world in terms
of the regulation (Law, 2011). At the same time, the
state of practical implementation of the new provisions
on access to information remains unsatisfactory since
the real opportunities for access to information are too
limited. There are cases of unjustified refusal for access
to information on an initiative basis; there is no effective
state control over the exercise of the right on the access
to public information.

It should be noted that there is a widespread practice
of covering the activities of courts on the Internet in the
countries of the European Union. So, according to the
British Guardian, the British Supreme Court officially
allowed journalists to use Twitter’s microblogging
service to convey messages from court hearings. Now,
journalists can apply for coverage of hearings in such
an expeditious manner. They are also allowed to send
messages from their mobile phones and use e-mail. For
the first time, the public was informed through instant
messaging from mobile phones about the events taking
place in the courtroom during hearings in the case of
Julian Assange. Previously, the United Kingdom was not
allowed to use social networks in the courtroom, as well
as prohibiting photographs and video during litigation.
Journalists could use dictators only in exceptional cases.
Liability for disrespect to the court imposed by the
court itself was provided for the violation of these rules.

The Council of Europe pays particular importance
to this issue, which introduced a number of principles
relating to obtaining information through mass media
on criminal proceedings. Thus, Recommendations
No. R (2003) 13 of the Committee of Ministers of the

Council of Europe to Member States on the procedure
for providing information on criminal proceedings
through the mass media dated from June 10, 2003,
stated that “since society should receive information
on the activities of judicial power and the police
through media, journalists should be able to freely talk
and comment on the activities of the judicial system”
(Recommendations, 2003).

These Recommendations the rights of journalists
and correspondent to them responsibilities of the
state, including the judicial authorities, establish as the
principles. Therefore, these requirements encourage the
creation of an effective system of interaction of courts
with the media and can be recognized as one of the
priority directions of the democratization of modern
Ukraine. At the same time, one of the guarantees
of keeping legality, objectivity and transparency in
the administration of justice is to inform the society
through the mass media about the activity of both the
judicial system in the whole and individual judges. The
coverage of these issues through the media forms legal
awareness and legal culture in society, defines the level
of its respect and trust in judicial power. In this context,
it should be noted that nowadays the interaction of
the Supreme Court with Ukrainian and foreign mass
media, including social media, electronic Internet
resources takes place in accordance with the Order of
interaction of the Supreme Court with representatives
of the mass media, approved by the order of the
Supreme Court dated from November 7, 2018,
No. 173-ОD. According to this Procedure, the
organization of work on the interaction of the Supreme
Court with the media is carried out by the head of
the department on information and communication
activities (press centre) (Order, 2018).

However, in practice, there may be cases where
publications in the media both do not increase the
authority of judicial power and do not contribute to the
growth of confidence but, on the contrary, diminish its
credibility or generally harm it. Such publications can be
posted in newspapers, on websites, in news agency and
in TV and radio programs. Therefore, as I. S. Hrytsenko
and S. V. Prylutskyi rightly note in their works, criticism
of the judge’s actions in media publications is an
ambiguous issue (Hrytsenko and Prylutskyi, 2015). It
is worth remembering that, according to the judgment
of the European Court of Human Rights in the case
of De Gaès and Giensels v. Belgium (1997), the court
found that “judges should be protected from destructive
cases by mass media having no actual basis.” At the same
time, if criticism of judicial problems or individual
judges is based on “proper and thorough journalistic
investigations, which are part of a public discussion of
important social needs,” there is no reason to restrict
freedom of the media. Of great significance is another
conclusion of the European Court: “judges must
exercise prudence, which does not allow them (unlike,

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
for example, politicians) to respond to sharp criticism”
(Council of Judges of Ukraine, The Center for Training
Judges, Association of Judges of Ukraine, 2009).

In accordance with the Recommendation CM /
Rec (2010), 12 of the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe to the Member States in regard to
judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities
of litigation and issues related to the administration
of justice are of public interest. However, the right to
receive information on judicial matters should be carried
out in the light of the restrictions established in view of
the independence of judicial power. In this regard, the
creation of positions of the courts’ counsellors or the
press and public relations departments in the area of
the responsibility of the courts or the councils of judges
or other independent authorities is approved. Judges
should exercise restraint in relations with the media.
At the same time, judges cannot effectively administer
justice without public confidence, as they are part of the
society they serve to. They should be aware of the public
expectations of the judicial system and complaints
about its functioning. This could be facilitated by the
availability of permanent mechanisms for obtaining
such information, by created councils of judges or other
independent agencies (Recommendation, 2010).

Thus, the main objective in relations between judicial
power and the media is the achievement of the “golden
mean”, so that a judge is protected from the pressure of
public opinion inspired by the conclusions of the media
in the case being considered or will be considered. At
the same time, society should have free access to the
courtroom through mass media. As the President of the
Constitutional Tribunal of Poland, Professor M. Safian,
rightly pointed out, the courts should not be afraid of
public opinion and should not be released from criticism
of the media. The legal force and the final nature of the
sentences do not exclude the possibility of such criticism
since justice is one of the most important players in
a public game in a democratic, rule-of-law state. It is
also impossible to build the authority of the courts on
prohibitions and lack of access to information. As a rule,
this has a reciprocal effect (Hrytsenko and Prylutskyi,
2015; Safian, 2007). Therefore, an important condition
for the openness of judicial power to the community is
the availability for courtrooms and court decisions as
a legal procedure that ensures the openness of the courts,
predictability of court decisions and promotes the equal
application of law and judicial practice. Thus, the access
of mass media representatives to the public area of the
Supreme Court premises and courtrooms (including
the Cassation Criminal Court), where cases are heard
in the open access, is carried out on general basis, taking
into account the Instruction on the execution of state
protection of the Supreme Court and the procedure for
admitting to the object of protection, approved by the
Office of the State Protection of Ukraine dated from
December 13, 2017, and approved by the Chairman

of the Supreme Court on December 14, 2017. In this
case, the presence of media representatives at court
hearings of the Supreme Court takes place without
prior accreditation upon presentation of a person’s
identity document, except cases of conducting closed
court hearings in accordance with the procedural law
(Order, 2018).

Thus, journalists have the right to be present at all
open court hearings and public announcements of court
decisions without prior accreditation. Nevertheless,
holding of photographing, video recording,
broadcasting on radio and television in the courtroom
during the hearings, as well as sound recording with the
use of stationary equipment is allowed on the basis of
a court order, which is made taking into account the
opinion of the parties and the possibility of conducting
such actions without prejudice to the trial (Part 6 of
the Art. 27 of the CPC of Ukraine). All court decisions
are publicly announced. Consequently, the presence of
journalists at court hearings provides a real opportunity
to get acquainted with court decisions. The right to
receive a copy of a court decision under procedural law
is granted only to the parties to the case. The Article 9 of
the Law of Ukraine “On Access to Court Decisions”
stipulates that persons who did not take part in the case
may apply to the relevant court apparatus with a written
application for the receipt of a copy of the decision
or familiarization with it in full, if the court decision
directly concerns their rights, freedoms, interests or
responsibilities (Law, 2005). The law defines a certain
procedure for filing and considering such applications.
The decision is then taken by the appropriate official of
the court apparatus. The existence of such a procedure
for obtaining access to court decisions creates the formal
grounds for a refusal to satisfy the mass media’s request
for access to such decisions. Therefore, it is worth
agreeing with I. S. Hrytsenko and S.V. Prylutskyi that
legislative reasons are incompatible with the general
principles of openness of information and the principle
of public (transparent and open) proclamation of
a decision, even despite the official disclosure of court
decisions, which is due to their placement on the web
portal of judicial power of Ukraine in the Unified State
Register of Judgments (www.court.gov.ua or at the
direct address www.reyestr.court.gov.ua) (Hrytsenko
and Prylutskyi, 2015).

At the same time, there are still problematic issues such
as the determination of the priority of the admission of
mass media representatives who perform their direct
professional functions during the court hearing; the
possibility of coverage and discussion (assessment) of
judicial activity in the media before a judgement enter
into force. Our legislator in these cases does not impose
any restrictions or criteria for the legality of such actions.

The issue of the priority of access of mass media
representatives to court hearings does not arise at all
in the vast majority of court proceedings. However,

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
litigation in the so-called “high-profile matters”, which
cause increased public interest, requires a solution to
this issue. Therefore, according to V. V. Korol, thanks to
the accreditation institution of media representatives in
the courts, we can in a civilized manner, and not by the
principle of “who came first” to decide on the issue of the
access of journalists to the courtroom, reservation for
them of a certain percentage of seats in the courtroom,
which are intended for the public (Korol, 2015).
However, the accreditation institution itself should not
in any way narrow the rights of journalists, provided to
them by the law. In this sense, the opinions of scholars
have a diametrically opposite nature of the negative
attitude to the procedure of accreditation (Rikhter,
2003) until its approval (Romanov and Holovanov,
2008). Therefore, sharing the opinion of V. V. Korol
in general, regarding the legislative definition of the
procedure for the admission of journalists and media
representatives to the court hearings, but we believe
that this procedure should be exclusively conciliatory in
nature. Hence, the legal position of the Supreme Court
regarding the accreditation of media representatives is
entirely logical in the activities that are organized and
not related to its procedural activities (Order, 2018).

As for another problematic issue within the
professional and ethical plane, which is associated
with coverage and discussion (providing evaluation)
of judicial activity in the media before a judgement
enters into force, then in this case, we completely
share the arguments of V. V. Korol, who delineates
this issue into two separate components: coverage and
discussion (evaluation) in the media of the procedural
activity of the court. Regarding the coverage of court
proceedings within the criminal judiciary, there are
no special reservations before judgement enters into
force. Certain reservations arise precisely in connection
with the possibility of discussing and assessing judicial
activity within criminal proceedings. Thus, one of the
tools for achieving the objective of a public project
“Open Court” is “to provide an objective assessment of
the actions of a judge, a prosecutor, a lawyer, to the level
of professionalism and ethical standards by specialists
with a recognized business reputation” (Korol, 2015).
Based on such an “objective assessment”, the project
envisages the creation of a professional record of
thousands of judges, prosecutors, and lawyers, exposing
unprofessional activity, knowingly unlawful acts and
corruption in the courts to the detriment of the interests
of the state, citizens, and businesses.

In particular, some “experts” of the project provide
a public assessment of judges, the selection procedure
of whom remains not enough clear and public. The
assessment becomes available to the general public,
which clearly affects the formation of public opinion both
in relation to a particular judge and in the proceedings he
is considering (Korol, 2015). Therefore, we are convinced
of the correctness of some opinions of the scholars, who

consider that the publications before the end of a trial
and the decision and proclamation in the court decision
should contain only the informative orientation of the
actual nature (Budnikova, 1999; Repeshko, 2009).

Finally, the positive experience of European countries
should be applied to establish fruitful relations between
domestic media and judges: to introduce a set of
measures that will allow media representatives and
judges to establish fruitful cooperation and ensure the
transparency of the activities of court agencies.

In particular, it is justified: (a) the introduction
of the press service and staff press secretaries in the
courts; (b) the establishment of such effective forms
of interaction between the judiciary and the media,
such as: holding press conferences, round tables, joint
conferences and seminars, contests, the allocation of
special sections for speeches of court employees, the
creation of public and editorial councils, holding open
doors days for the media; (c) the introduction of the
Institute of accreditation on professional attributes;
(d) specialization of journalists; (e) establishing the
liability of journalists for discrediting judicial power and
its officials (Ovsiannikova, 2009).

4. Findings
The authors have elaborated recommendations on

amendments and alterations to the Law of Ukraine
“On Judiciary and Status of Judges” and the current
Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, which are aimed
at ensuring the right of a person to defence in the
transparent and open criminal proceedings.

Therefore, the authors have offered to supplement
Part 1 of the Art. 11 of the Law of Ukraine “On the
Judiciary and Status of Judges” with the provisions
on guaranteeing the right of everyone to receive
information on the administration of justice and other
information on judicial power in the volume, forms,
and from sources provided by the law. In the absence
of legally established restrictions on the provision of
this information, the state is obliged to provide it to any
person who such an interest.

Moreover, it is expedient to determine in Part 3 of
the Art. 11 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary
and Status of Judges” the mechanism of free access and
participation of representatives of mass media in court
proceedings, which is carried out in an open court
hearing without any discrimination and preliminary
accreditation. In this case, the specified legislative
amendments must be synchronized with Part 1 of the
Art. 27 of the CPC of Ukraine by amending the last
sentence, which reads as follows: “No one shall be
restricted in the right to receive information in the court
about the date, time and place of a trial, which must be
made public on the official web portal of the judicial
power of Ukraine and about the court decisions made
therein, except in cases established by the law”.

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
The said will promote the more effective realization of

the right on transparent and open court proceedings by
public and media representatives, provide public control
over judicial power while executing its procedural
activities, and guarantee the right of everyone to receive
information on the administration of justice in line with
European standards.

5. Conclusions
Consequently, we can state the interconnectedness

of the effective implementation of the principles of
transparency and openness of criminal proceedings and
the restoration of trust in the judicial system by civil
society. The principles of transparency and openness, for
the public, are an important prerequisite for exercising
control over the judiciary and an effective tool for
preventing corruption, detecting and stopping corrupt
practices. In turn, public control is one of the ways for
citizens to participate in the state administration.

Access to information circulating in the judicial system
and the administration of justice is a necessary tool for
conducting journalistic investigations and encouraging
civic activism in the anti-corruption area.

Notice of scheduled court hearings in courts of all
instances, indictments, and other information related
to legal issues should be made available to the public
and journalists at the simple request of the competent
authority within the prescribed time limit unless the
provision of such information is feasible. At the same time,
journalists, media representatives should be allowed to
make or receive copies of publicly announced decisions
on equal terms. They should be able to distribute or
announce such decisions to the public. At the same time,
the right to receive information on litigation should be
carried out in regard to the restrictions imposed by the
independence of the judiciary.

Due to the analogy of the use of the institution of
accreditation of media representatives and journalists in

the courts, it is possible to solve the issue of their access
to the courtroom in a civilizational manner, reserving
for them a certain percentage of seats in the courtroom,
which are intended for the public. A detailed procedure
for admitting journalists, media employees in the courts
should be regulated in the legislation on the judicial
system.

It is also expedient to pay special attention, among
the measures to counteract corruption and illegal
enrichment within the judiciary, to the selection of
candidates for positions of judges. This procedure should
be carried out in accordance with the list of indicators
for determining the inconsistency of judges with criteria
of integrity and professional ethics developed and
approved by the Public Council of Integrity.

However, a number of issues within the subject of the
research remains unresolved. In particular, Art. 368-
2 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (Illegal Enrichment)
(Code, 2001), which may be an effective mechanism
for the deprivation of illegally acquired property from
offenders in judicial robes, should comply with the
Art. 20 of the United Nations Convention against
Corruption (Convention, 2003). Simultaneously with
criminal and legal instruments for bringing to liability
for the illegal enrichment of judges (other persons
within judicial power), it is also necessary to introduce
civil and legal instruments for the collection of the
property, the legal origin of which a person cannot prove
according to the established procedure by law by the
prosecutor’s claim (specially authorized anti-corruption
agency) into the income of the state.

Further scientific developments also require issues
regarding the practical determination of the priority of
admission of mass media representatives, who during
their judicial session perform their direct professional
functions; the possibility of coverage and discussion
(assessment) of judicial activity in the media before
a court decision enters into force.

References:
Relevant problems of Ensuring Publicity of Judicial Power. URL: http://advocat-cons.info/index.
php?newsid=14166#.WnWTH65l_cs
Boikov, A. D. (1989). Glasnost i pravosudie [Publicity and Justice]. Sovetskoie hosudarstvo i pravo, 8, 14.
British Journalists Will Highlight Trials with the Help of Twitter. URL: http://www.telekfltika.ua/news/2010-12-
20/58554
Budnikova, L. I., & Budnikov, V. L. (1999). Glasnost ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [Publicity of Criminal
Proceedings]. Mass Media and Legal Culture of Population: materials of International scientific and practical
conference. Volhohrad : Volhohrad Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.
Open Court // Official portal. URL: http://open-court.org
Leonenko, V. V., Miller, A. I., Siryi, N. I., & Chanhuli, H. I. (1993). Publicity of Court Activity on Criminal Cases:
[manual]. Kyiv: Nauk. dumka.
Hrytsenko, I. S., & Prylutskyi, S. V. (2015). Vplyv hromadianskoho suspilstva na stanovlennia sudovoi vlady v
Ukraini [Influence of Civil Society on the Establishment of Judicial Power in Ukraine]. Visnyk kryminalnoho
sudochynstva, 2, 214–222.
Hrytsenko, I. S., & Prylutskyi, S. V. (2015). Sudova vlada i hromadianske suspilstvo [ Judicial Power and Civil
Society]: the Concept of Interaction. Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva, 1, 241–249.

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
Hroshevoi, Yu. M. (1972). Obshestvennoe mnenie i prigovor sovetskogo suda [Public Opinion and the Verdict of
the Soviet Court] : Lecture notes. Kharkiv.
Reference Information for Citizens on the Activities of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court.
URL: https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pro_sud/dovidkova_info_dlya_gromadyan_kks/
Zakon Ukrainy vid 2 chervnia 2016 roku № 1402-VIII «Pro sudoustrii i status suddiv» (stanom na 12.07.2018 r.)
[Law of Ukraine dated from June 2, 2016. No. 1402-VIII “On Judiciary and Status of Judges” (as of July 12, 2018)].
Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2016. No. 31. Art. 545.
Zakon Ukrainy vid 7 lypnia 2010 roku № 2453-VI «Pro sudoustrii i status suddiv» [Law of Ukraine dated from July 7,
2010. No. 2453-VI “On Judiciary and Status of Judges”]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2010. No. 41–42. Art. 529.
Zakon Ukrainy vid 14 zhovtnia 2014 roku № 1700-VII «Pro zapobihannia koruptsii» [Law of Ukraine dated
from October 14, 2014. No. 1700-VIІ “On Prevention of Corruption”]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2014.
No. 49. Art. 2056.
Zakon Ukrainy vid 22 hrudnia 2005 roku № 3262-IV «Pro dostup do sudovykh rishen» (stanom na 3.10.2017 r.)
[Law of Ukraine dated from December 22, 2005. No. 3262-IV “On Access to Judgements” (as of October 3, 2017)].
Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2006. No. 15. Art. 128.
Zakon Ukrainy vid 13 sichnia 2011 roku № 2939-VI «Pro dostup do publichnoi informatsii» (stanom na 9.04.2015
r.) [Law of Ukraine dated from January 13, 2011. No. 2939-VI “On Access to Public Information” (as of April 9,
2015)]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2011. No. 32. Art. 314.
Zakony Ukrainy vid 2 zhovtnia 1992 roku № 2657-KhII «Pro informatsiiu» v redaktsii Zakonu Ukrainy vid
13.01.2011 r. № 2938-VI (stanom na 06.12.2016 r.) [Laws of Ukraine dated from October 2, 1992. No. 2657-ХІІ
“On Information” in the edition of Law of Ukraine dated from January 13, 2011. No. 2938- VI (as of December 6,
2016)]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2011. No. 32. Art. 313.
Zakon Ukrainy vid 8 kvitnia 2014 roku № 1188-VII «Pro vidnovlennia doviry do sudovoi vlady v Ukraini» (stanom
na 21.12.2016 r.) [Law of Ukraine dated from April 8, 2014. No. 1188-VII “On Restoring Trust to Judicial Power in
Ukraine” (as of December 21, 2016)]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2014. No. 23. Art. 870.
Zakon Ukrainy vid 12 liutoho 2015 roku № 192-VIII «Pro zabezpechennia prava na spravedlyvyi sud» (stanom
na 21.12.2016 r.) [Law of Ukraine dated from February 12, 2015. No. 192-VIII “On Guaranteeing the Right to Fair
Trial” (as of December 21, 2016)]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2015. No. 18, No. 19-20. Art. 132.
Zakon Ukrainy vid 23 liutoho 2006 roku № 3477-IV «Pro vykonannia rishen ta zastosuvannia praktyky
Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny» (stanom na 16.10.2012 r.) [Law of Ukraine dated from February 23, 2006.
No. 3477-ІV “On Execution of Judgements and Implementation of the Practice of the European Court of Human
Rights” (as of October 16, 2012)]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2006. No. 30. Art. 260.
Zakon Ukrainy «Pro ochyshchennia vlady» (stanom na 21.12.2017r.) vid 16 veresnia 2014 roku № 1682-VII [Law
of Ukraine “On Purification of Power” (as of December 21, 2017) dated from September 16, 2014. No. 1682-VІІ].
Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy (VVR). 2014. No. 44. Art. 2041.
Konventsiia pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod vid 4 lystopada 1950 roku [Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms dated from November 4, 1950].
URL: http://zakon0.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004
Konventsiia Orhanizatsii Obiednanykh Natsii proty koruptsii 2003 roku: ratyfikovana Zakonom Ukrainy vid
18.10.2006 № 251-V [UN Convention against Corruption of 2003: ratified by the Law of Ukraine dated from
October 18, 2006. No. 251-V]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2006. No. 50. Art. 496.
Konstytutsiia Ukrainy [Constitution of Ukraine]. URL: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254к/96-вр
Korol, V. V. (2015). Suchasni formy hromadskoho kontroliu v sudakh i yikh vplyv na realizatsiiu zasadnychykh
polozhen hlasnosti y vidkrytosti kryminalnoho provadzhennia [Modern Forms of Public Control in Courts
and Their Influence on the Implementation of the Basic Principles of Transparency and Openness of Criminal
Proceedings]. Prykarpatskyi yurydychnyi visnyk, 3(9), 291–296.
Korol, V. V. (2015). Orhanizatsiini ta protsesualni formy realizatsii zasady hlasnosti i vidkrytosti kryminalnoho
provadzhennia [Organizational and Procedural Forms of Implementing the Principle of Transparency and
Openness of Criminal Proceedings]. Pravo і suspilstvo, 4(2), 185–192.
Korol, V. V. (2003). Zasada hlasnosti kryminalnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy: poniattia, zmist, pidstavy obmezhennia
[Principle of Publicity of Criminal Proceedings of Ukraine: Concept, Content, Reasons for Restriction]. Ivano-
Frankivsk: Plai.
Hroshevyi, Yu. M., Tatsii, V. Ya., Tumaniants, A. P., and others (2013). Kryminalnyi protses [Criminal Procedure]:
textbook. Kharkiv: Pravo.
Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy vid 13 kvitnia 2012 roku № 4651-VI (stanom na 16 lystopada 2017 roku)
[Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine dated from April 13, 2012. No. 4651-VI (as of November 16, 2017)].
Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2012. No. 9-10, No. 11-12, No. 13. Art. 88. URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/
laws/show/4651-17/print1487012800234384
Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy vid 5 kvitnia 2001 roku [Criminal Code of Ukraine dated from April 5, 2001].
Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 2001. No. 25-26. Art. 131.
Levi, A. A., & Horinov, Yu. A. (1983). Zvukozapis i videozapis v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Sound Recording
and Video Recording in Criminal Proceedings]. Moskva: Yurid. lit.

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
Leonenko, V. V., Miller, A. I., Siryi, N. I., & Chanhuli, H. I. (1993). Glasnost sudebnoj deyatelnosti po ugolovnym
delam [Publicity of Court Activity on Criminal Cases]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka. (in Ukrainian)
Makarova, Z. V. (1993). Glasnost ugolovnogo processa [Publicity of Criminal Proceedings] : monograph. Under
edition of Z. Z. Zinatulina. Cheliabinsk: ChHTU.
Maliarenko, V. T. (1998). Hlasnist sudovoho protsesu ta yoho povne fiksuvannia tekhnichnymy zasobamy yak
odna iz osnovnykh konstytutsiinykh zasad kryminalnoho sudochynstva [Publicity of Criminal Proceedings and
Its Complete recording by Technical Means as One of the Main Constitutional Principles of Criminal Justice].
Visnyk Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy, 4(10), 26–33.
Nakaz Derzhavnoi sudovoi administratsii Ukrainy vid 6 travnia 2011 roku № 93 «Pro zatverdzhennia Polozhennia
pro poriadok orhanizatsii dostupu do publichnoi informatsii, shcho znakhodytsia u volodinni Derzhavnoi sudovoi
administratsii Ukrainy [Order of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine dated from May 6, 2011. No. 93
“On Approval of the Regulation on the Procedure for the Organization of Access to Public Information in the
Possession of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine”]. URL: http://dsa.court.gov.ua/dsa/pybinf/ndsa19/
Nakaz Derzhavnoi sudovoi administratsii Ukrainy vid 17 hrudnia 2013 roku № 173 «Pro zatverdzhennia
Instruktsii z dilovodstva v mistsevykh zahalnykh sudakh, apeliatsiinykh sudakh oblastei, apeliatsiinykh sudakh mist
Kyieva ta Sevastopolia, Apeliatsiinomu sudi Avtonomnoi Respubliky Krym ta Vyshchomu spetsializovanomu sudi
Ukrainy z rozghliadu tsyvilnykh i kryminalnykh sprav» [Order of the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine
dated from December 17, 2013. No. 173 “On Approval of the Instruction on Records Management in Local
General Courts, Regional Appeal Courts, Appellate Courts of Kyiv and Sevastopol, the Court of Appeal of the
Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Supreme Specialized Court of Ukraine on Civil and Criminal Cases”].
URL: http://dsa.court.gov.ua
Ovsiannikova, O. O. (2009). Transparentnist sudovoi vlady [Transparency of Judicial Power]: Synopsis of
a thesis … candidate of law sciences by specialty 12.00.10 – judiciary; prosecutor’s office and the bar. Kharkiv.
Ovsiannikova, O. O. (2008). Transparentnist sudovoi vlady: poniattia ta zmist [Transparency of Judicial Power:
Concept and Content]. Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy, 4(55), 228–237.
Petryshyn, A. P. (2017). Konstiucionno-pravovye osnovy glasnosti pravosudiya v Rossii [Constitutional and
Legal Basis of Justice Transparency in Russia]: dissertation for a candidate of law sciences : specialty 12.00.02
“Constitutional Law; constitutional court proceedings; municipal law”. Moscow.
Petrukhin, I. L. (1981). Glasnost sudoproizvodstva [Publicity of Judicial System]. Constitutional Basis in the USSR.
Moskva: Nauka.
Poriadok vzaiemodii Verkhovnoho Sudu z predstavnykamy zasobiv masovoi informatsii: nakaz Verkhovnoho
Sudu vid 7 lystopada 2018 roku № 173-OD [Interaction Procedure between the Supreme Court and
Mass Media Representatives: order of the Supreme Court dated from November 7, 2018. No 173-OD].
URL: https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pres-centr/vzaemodiya/
Pohoretskyi, M. A., & Yanovska, O. H. Vidkrytist ta prozorist sudovoi systemy: problemy realizatsii mizhnarodnykh
standartiv v Ukraini [Transparency and Openness of the Judicial System: Problems of Realization of International
Standards in Ukraine]. URL: http://lcslaw.knu.ua/index.php/arkhiv-nomeriv/2-3-2013/item/111-vidkrytist-ta-
prozorist-sudovoi-systemy-problemy-realizatsii-mizhnarodnykh-standartiv-v-ukraini-pohoretskyi-m-a-yanovska-o-h
Praskova, S. V. (2004). Teoreticheskie osnovy glasnosti pravosudiya [Theoretical Basis of Justice Publicity]:
Synopsis of a thesis … candidate of law sciences]. Moskva.
Rada suddiv Ukrainy, Tsentr suddivskykh studii, Asotsiatsiia suddiv Ukrainy (2009). Rehionalna model zmitsnennia
nezalezhnosti suddiv [Regional Model of Strengthening Independence of the Judges: Practical manual for Judges
commissions]. Collective of authors, Judges Commission of Ukraine, The Center of Judges Groups, Association of
Ukrainian Judges. Kyiv: Polihraf-Ekspres.
Rekomendatsii vid 10 chervnia 2003 roku № R (2003). 13 Komitetu ministriv Rady Yevropy derzhavam-chlenam
pro poriadok nadannia informatsii pro provadzhennia u kryminalnykh spravakh cherez zasoby masovoi informatsii.
Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy [Recommendations dated from June 10, 2003. № R (2003) 13 of the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States on the procedure for providing information on criminal
proceedings through the mass media]. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_870
Rekomendatsiia CM/Rec (2010). 12 Komitetu ministriv Rady Yevropy derzhavam-chlenam shchodo suddiv:
nezalezhnist, efektyvnist ta oboviazky. Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy [Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 12 of the
The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Member States on judges: independence, efficiency and
responsibilities]. URL: http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/cgi-bin/laws/main.cgi?nreg=994_a38
Repeshko, P. I. Osveshenie v SMI sudebnyh processov kak sredstvo obespecheniya otkrytosti i glasnosti
sudoproizvodstva (ukrainskij opyt) [Media Coverage of Court Processes as a Mean of Ensuring Transparency
and Publicity of the Judiciary (Ukrainian Experience)]. URL: http://www.medialaw.kiev.ua/zmisud/
sudanalityka/226/
Rishennia Vyshchoi rady pravosuddia vid 19 kvitnia 2018 roku № 1200/0/15-18 «Pro zatverdzhennia Poriadku
vedennia Yedynoho derzhavnoho reiestru sudovykh rishen» [Resolution of the High Council for Justice dated
from April 19, 2018. No. 1200/0/15-18 “On Approval of the Procedure of Operating the Unified State Register of
Court Decisions”]. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/v1200910-18
Rikhter, A. H. (2003). Glasnost pravosudiya i prava zhurnalistov [Transparency of Justice and Rights of Journalists].
Legislation and Practice of Mass Media, 12, 13–17.

Baltic Journal of Economic Studies

Vol. 5, No. 4, 2019
Romanov, S. V., & Holovanov, D. A. Princip glasnosti ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva i sredstva massovoj informacii:
istoricheskoe razvitie i sovremennaya problematika [Principle of Publicity of Criminal Proceedings and Mass Media:
Historical Development and Modern Problems]. URL: http://www.medialaw.kiev.ua/zmisud/sudanalityka/197/
Marek Safian (2007). Rol suddiv pry pobudovi hromadianskoho suspilstva [The Role of Judges in Building Civil
Society]. Judiciary and Judicial System in Ukraine, 7, 114–121.
Sida, Yu. S. (2005). Sudova vlada v umovakh transformatsii ukrainskoho suspilstva [ Judicial Power in Terms of
Transformation of Ukrainian Society]: Synopsis of a thesis … candidate of sociological sciences: by specialty
22.00.04. V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Kharkiv.
Smirnov, A. V. Problemy otkrytosti sudebnoj vlasti dlya grazhdanskogo obshestva. Ekspertnoe issledovanie na
osnove pravoprimenitelnoj praktiki ugolovnyh sudov Sankt-Peterburga i Leningradskoj oblasti [Problems of
Trasparency of Judicial Power for Civil Society. Expert research based on law-enforcement practice of criminal
courts of St. Petersburg and Leningrad region]. URL: http://www.kalinovsky-k.narod.ru/b/sav-tr0.htm
Smirnov, A. V. Publichnost (otkrytost) sudebnoj vlasti kak uslovie demokratii v Rossii [Publicity (Openness) of Judicial
Power as the Condition for Democracy in Russia]. URL: http://kalinovsky-k.narod.ru/b/st/smirnov2004.htm
Staly vidomi indykatory vyznachennia nevidpovidnosti suddiv kryteriiam dobrochesnosti [Indicators for
Determining the Inconsistency of Judges with the Criteria of Integrity Became Known]. Tsentr suddivskykh studii,
2019. URL: http://judges.org.ua/crime/www.law.indiana.edu/dig15567.htm
Judicial Power of Ukraine: Official web portal. URL: http://court.gov.ua
Fluri, F., & Badrak, V. (2016). Antykoruptsiini zakhody v Ukraini pislia Revoliutsii Hidnosti : kliuchovi zakonodavchi
aspekty [Anticorruption Measures in Ukraine after the Revolution of Dignity : Key Legislative Aspects]. Kyiv.
Shushanashvili, A. A. (1969). Glasnost v sovetskom ugolovnom processe [Publicity within Soviet Criminal
Procedure]. Tbilisi.