The Ukrainian judicial system, long plagued by systemic issues of corruption and nepotism, embarked on a transformative journey of reform following the events of 2014. Central to these efforts was the implementation of an unique independent selection system for judges, which revolutionized traditional practices and laid the groundwork for a more transparent and accountable judiciary and court administration.

This paper explores Ukraine's pioneering approach to judicial selection, particularly focusing on its innovative mechanisms introduced for the Constitutional Court, High Council of Justice, Supreme Court, High Anticorruption Court. The reforms, initiated through amendments to the Constitution in 2016, heralded a new era of integrity and professionalism in the judiciary, guided by the principles of "legal ethics" and bolstered by international collaboration.

At the heart of Ukraine's reform agenda was the establishment of independent selection bodies comprising both national and international representatives (US, UK, EU professional). This unique composition, with pivotal decision-making authority vested in international members, ensured a holistic and impartial evaluation of judicial candidates, untethered by local biases or personal affiliations within the legal community.

The involvement of international experts in the selection process was instrumental in enhancing transparency and fairness, countering endemic corruption and patronage networks. Their expertise and impartiality served to elevate standards of legal professionalism and uphold democratic values, fostering public trust in the judiciary.

Furthermore, Ukraine's innovative approach to judicial selection has not only focused on professional competency but also emphasized the importance of high moral qualities and ethical standards. Recent developments have broadened the scope of selection criteria, reflecting a multidisciplinary understanding of the role of ethics in the legal profession and its impact on democratic governance and court administration.

Drawing from firsthand experience and four years of active engagement with these reform efforts, the author offers valuable insights into the practical implications and successes of Ukraine's judicial selection system. By sharing lessons learned and policy recommendations, this paper contributes to the discourse on public policy design, evaluation, and the promotion of democratic quality, shaping the future of judicial reform efforts both in Ukraine and beyond.

Nowadays, courts are increasingly confronted with the problem of finding suitable staff. This applies both to judges and, in particular, to other court staff. Successful recruitment measures are therefore necessary on the one hand, while the qualification of the staff must be guaranteed on the other. The measures for recruiting (junior) staff in the district of the Higher Regional Court of Cologne and the selection procedures themselves are therefore presented.

Courts are at the heart of regalian activities. In Switzerland, the work of Courts in first and second instances is essentially the responsibility of the cantons. This research aims to analyze the workload of Courts concerning both non penal and penal cases in a comparative and longitudinal perspective. Using data and indicators published by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ-STAT) and data from a similar online survey conducted among 26 Swiss cantons between 2010 and 2022, the study seeks to explore the relationship between Courts workload in terms of incoming and resolved cases, and the dotation of Judges in personal (non-judge). Additionally, it aims to contextualize Swiss results within the cantons and with other similar countries, building regionalization and providing a comparative perspective on the subject.

The findings shed light not only on legal systems workload management by type of procedures, but also on the impact of judicial personnel on the system efficiency. The conclusions offer valuable insights that can inform policy and practice within the field of justice, and highlighting impact of different practices that vary from region to region.

With the Code of Administrative Procedure, Hungary took a step towards more effective judicial review in administrative disputes. By opening access to administrative courts through a general clause, the aim was to channel most administrative disputes to the administrative courts. Since then, empirical evidence shows that this goal has not been fully achieved and that there is still a dominance of civil courts that hinders the full autonomy of the administrative judiciary.

This paper aims to examine some of the obstacles and show how both procedural law and court management can (or could) help to overcome them.

1. The civil courts do not want to withdraw from certain cases and the mechanisms for dealing with conflicts of jurisdiction do not prevent the civil courts from dealing with these cases. Defendants can raise concerns about lack of jurisdiction, but they do not have a formalised means to address this issue in advance, since they cannot initiate another dispute on the subject, which would be a precondition for a conflict of jurisdictions to arise.

2. Court management has still not taken into account the developments of the last 20 years, during which administrative justice (or, more precisely, the category of administrative judges) has gradually emerged and begun its emancipation from civil law. This emancipation was taken to a new level with the Code of Administrative Procedure, which grants autonomy from a procedural point of view. Court management still considers administrative justice to be part of civil justice and does not foster its autonomy in the administration of justice. This omission has serious consequences for the effectiveness of judicial protection, from the selection of judges over the categories used in court management to the mechanisms for collecting statistical data.

3. However, it is not only the separation of these two branches that is important, but also the possible synergies. This could in principle take the form of mixed panels at the highest level of the judiciary, which would enable cases involving more than administrative law to be heard jointly, or of enlarged panels in which the "normal" panel would be joined by judges specialising in the field in question. However, as the number of judges in the judicial panels has recently been increased, instead of enlargement there is substitution, which jeopardises the objectives of this institution.

These are all fields, where a court management dedicated to fostering the autonomy of administrative justice could do much for enhancing the effectiveness of judicial protection against administration – in a monistic organisational model that would be more than vital.