Abstract

The research relevance is determined by the need to reform public authorities, in particular, the judiciary, in the context of martial law and European integration processes. The study aims to analyse the legal framework in the context of determining the constitutional and legal status of judges in Ukraine. The following methods were used: logical analysis, formal legal analysis, dogmatic analysis, legal hermeneutics, deduction, induction, and synthesis, which were used to identify the main principles of regulation of the constitutional and legal status of judges in Ukraine. The study states that the current constitutional and legal status of judges is determined by the updated version of the Constitution, the Law of Ukraine “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges” and other legislative acts. It is noted that one of the main problems of the judicial system of Ukraine is the understaffing of courts. Following the reforms which have been implemented since 2 June 2016 and have amended several provisions, the author makes a comparative legal analysis of the status of judges before and after the innovations. The study determined that judges used to have absolute immunity, and now they have functional immunity, which protects them from prosecution for their actions. These reforms were implemented to ensure the independence of judges and protect them from political pressure. The author examines the experience of such countries as Italy, Germany, Japan, and the USA in the context of ensuring the principle of judicial independence. It is argued that this principle can be implemented in various forms. The importance of rebranding of state institutions is also substantiated.