Within the framework of the Council of Europe project “Support to Ukraine in implementation of the Council of Europe standards on the judiciary”, a sociological survey was conducted to assess the perceptions of attorneys-at-law, prosecutors, public enforcement officers and private enforcement officers regarding the judicial system of Ukraine.
The survey was carried out by the Razumkov Centre’s Sociological Service between 25 September and 24 December 2025. It involved 764 attorneys-at-law, 728 prosecutors, 571 public enforcement officers and 213 private enforcement officers practising in Ukraine.
The study focuses on levels of trust in courts and other justice institutions, perceptions of judicial independence, corruption and political influence, access to justice, as well as the assessment of reforms introduced over the past decade.
The findings indicate that representatives of all professional groups— attorneys-at-law, prosecutors, public and private enforcement officers—generally demonstrate a high level of trust in the justice system and courts. The judicial system and courts (with the exception of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine) record the highest levels of trust, with between two thirds and three quarters of respondents expressing confidence in them.
A separate group comprises the prosecution service, the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, and professional legal associations, which are trusted by approximately two thirds of respondents. Anti-corruption bodies, including the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine, enjoy trust levels ranging from 54% to 58%, while civil society organisations involved in international programmes and projects in the field of judicial reform and anti-corruption, as well as the patrol police, are trusted by approximately half of respondents.
Levels of trust vary across professional groups. Prosecutors demonstrate the highest levels of trust in the prosecution service (88.5%), courts and the judicial system (ranging from two thirds to over 79%, depending on the institution), the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights (68%), and the police (57%).
Attorneys-at-law are less inclined to trust anti-corruption bodies and show lower levels of trust in the police: among attorneys-at-law, the share of those who do not trust the police (49.5%) exceeds those who do (45%). Enforcement officers demonstrate intermediate levels: approximately half of both public and private enforcement officers trust the police, while more than one third in these groups express distrust.
Respondents assessed judicial independence and the level of corruption in public authorities using the scales provided in the report. Seventeen per cent of respondents consider judges in Ukraine to be fully independent, while the majority assess them as generally independent but potentially subject to influence; only 3% consider judges to be fully dependent. In assessing corruption levels, average scores for most institutions range between 2.9 and 3.3 on a five-point scale (where “1” denotes an institution free from corruption and “5” denotes a fully corrupt institution). The Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights received a lower average score (2.5), while the customs service received a higher score (3.7).
Legal professionals also assessed the clarity of how courts function for citizens, the cost of access to justice (excluding legal fees), the timeliness of proceedings, court operating conditions, budgetary funding, the level of judicial remuneration, and the enforcement of court decisions. The average score for the clarity of court functioning for citizens is 3.1 on a scale from 0 to 6; the cost of access to justice is rated at 3.3; and the timeliness of case examination at 2.7. More than half of respondents consider court operating conditions and the state funding of courts in Ukraine to be adequate. A large majority of respondents consider judicial remuneration at different levels of jurisdiction to be sufficient.
The report also presents assessments of the enforcement of court decisions. A majority of public and private enforcement officers (52%) consider enforcement to be adequate; among prosecutors, a relative majority (43%) share this view, while among attorneys-at-law, a relative majority (48%) consider enforcement to be inadequate.
A separate section is devoted to comparing the chances of obtaining a fair judgment in Ukrainian courts and before the European Court of Human Rights. Responses are distributed as follows: 40% consider the chances equal, 41% believe they are higher before the European Court of Human Rights, and 11% consider them higher in Ukrainian courts.
The report also includes data on the perceived impact of the 2016 constitutional amendments in the field of justice and the status of the prosecution service, perceptions of the role of international experts and civil society representatives in judicial selection and qualification procedures, and attitudes towards the possible restoration or establishment of military courts.
The full report, including tables, charts and detailed survey findings, is available via the link.
Disclaimer
The Council of Europe does not accept responsibility for the content of this document. Its support does not imply endorsement of the opinions, conclusions or statements expressed therein. The views and information contained in the report do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Council of Europe or any of its bodies.
