Issue: № 1, 2026
Doi: https://doi.org/10.37634/efp.2026.1.3
The paper examines the complex of legal and quasi-legal instruments through which the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and its associated institutions (the Venice Commission, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Committee of Ministers) influence the content and procedure of the legislative process in Ukraine. The purpose of the paper is the systematization of these mechanisms, a critical analysis of their legal nature (especially within the context of the soft law doctrine), and an assessment of their actual effectiveness in conditions of national implementation. The paper employs a system-structural method for classifying mechanisms; a comparative legal method for analyzing the status of Council of Europe acts and their integration into the national legal system; and a case-study method for assessing the real consequences of reforms initiated under international monitoring (in particular, judicial and prosecutorial reforms). Scientific novelty lies in the doctrinal substantiation of the quasi-obligatory nature of the Venice Commission's conclusions, transforming political monitoring by PACE into a legal imperative to avoid the unconstitutionality of laws. It is established that PACE influence functions through a two-channel system: preventive expert influence (Venice Commission) and imperative binding influence (implementation of ECtHR judgments). Although PACE resolutions are soft law, the conclusions of the Venice Commission acquire the status of an authoritative source for constitutional jurisdiction. The actual effectiveness of these mechanisms is significantly undermined by internal factors, including institutional instability (cyclical changes in the High Council of Justice (HCJ)/High Qualification Commission of Judges (HQCJ)) and administrative misconduct (failures in prosecutor certification). Practical significance and conclusions. The results of the work are of practical significance for improving the quality of legislative drafting in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and harmonizing national legislation with European standards. It is determined that achieving the goals of European monitoring requires Ukraine to focus on ensuring the consistency of changes and the effective enforcement of existing laws, as well as guaranteeing the conscientious implementation of decisions.
Keywords : Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Venice Commission, soft law, rule of law, legislative process, implementation of ECtHR judgments, judicial independence, High Qualification Commission of Judges, HQCJ
References:
1. Constitution of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine No. 254k/96-VR, 28 June 1996. Information of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 1996. No. 30. Art. 141. (in Ukrainian).
2. On the Judiciary and Status of Judges: Law of Ukraine No. 1402-VIII, 2 June 2016. Information of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 2016. No. 31. Art. 545. (in Ukrainian).
3. On Execution of Judgments and Application of the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights: Law of Ukraine No. 3477-IV, 23 February 2006. Information of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 2006. No. 30. Art. 260. (in Ukrainian).
4. On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine Regarding the Judiciary and Status of Judges: Law of Ukraine No. 193-IX, 16 October 2019. Information of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. 2019. No. 46. Art. 307. (in Ukrainian).
5. Supreme Court of Ukraine. Grand Chamber Judgment of 18 September 2018 in Case No. 800/421/17. (in Ukrainian).
6. Supreme Court of Ukraine. Grand Chamber Judgment of 3 July 2019 in Case No. 9901/12/19. (in Ukrainian).
7. European Court of Human Rights. Kudla v. Poland, no. 30210/96, judgment of 26 October 2000.
8. European Court of Human Rights. Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, judgment of 9 January 2013.
9. European Court of Human Rights. Baka v. Hungary, no. 20261/12, Grand Chamber judgment of 23 June 2016.
10. European Court of Human Rights. Kövesi v. Romania, no. 3594/19, judgment of 5 May 2020.
11. European Court of Human Rights. National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v. the United Kingdom, no. 31045/10, judgment of 8 April 2014.
12. European Convention on Human Rights (1950).
13. Venice Commission. Opinion on the Amendments to the Legislative Framework on the Supreme Court and Judicial Governance Bodies (Ukraine) CDL-AD(2019)027.
14. Venice Commission. Urgent Joint Opinion on the Draft Law Amending Certain Laws on the Activities of the Supreme Court and Judicial Governance Bodies CDL-AD(2020)022.
15. Venice Commission. Rule of Law Checklist CDL-AD(2016)007.
16. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). Resolution 1755 (2010) “Functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine”.
17. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). Resolution 2387 (2021) “Implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights”.
18. Council of Europe. Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities.
19. High Council of Justice of Ukraine. Annual Report 2020. (in Ukrainian).
20. Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. National Human Rights Strategy (Updated 2021 Edition). (in Ukrainian)
21. Buromenskyi M., Fulei T. The European Court of Human Rights and Its Case-Law. Kyiv, 2012. (in Ukrainian).
22. Kravchuk M. Judicial Self-Governance in Ukraine: Problems and Reform Prospects. Legal science. 2021. No. 4. pp. 15–24. (in Ukrainian).
23. Petryshyn O. V. Judicial Power in Ukraine: Current Status and Directions of Reform. Law of Ukraine. 2022. No. 3. P. 48–60. (in Ukrainian).
24. Serebrianskyi D. The Concept of Rule of Law in Light of ECtHR Case-Law. Bulletin of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine. 2020. No. 1. pp. 34–45. (in Ukrainian).
25. Shevchuk S. Judicial Protection of Human Rights: Practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Kyiv, 2016. (in Ukrainian).