(* Soviet coinage, meaning something being done, like appointments, or instructions received by phone calls from upstairs; it was standard procedure for the judges to receive such calls in "sensitive" cases - e.g., those involving party functionaries or their relatives - to softpedal or even dismiss the case; little has changed since then in Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries.)

On learning that he has never dealt with a single such case in his long years in office, Ukrainian journalists persist: has he never been invited to a restaurant to discuss a case and be "persuaded" to show a lenient attitude to the defendant? To this Mr. Futei replies that such an invitation would have most unpleasant consequences for the person extending it; a US judge must report things like that to the competent authorities and the latter will do their own investigating. In fact, this is not to be shrugged off, for it could be an act of provocation of internal affairs, so ignoring it would have a hazardous effect on his career.

Such press conferences are the best evidence of the abyss still dividing the Ukrainian judicial system and that of other democratic countries. The status of the Ukrainian judicial reform, on which the media place so much hope, is watched by the judicial and executive authorises with what can be mildly described as surprise - as was the case with the new Law "On Legal Proceedings", adopted by the Verkhovna Rada in February 2002.

A lot of questions also arise when analysing the acts of the Ministry of Justice that are often kept in a "split personality" style. At times the Ministry supports projects relating to the future of the judicial reform that are mutually exclusive.

The manner in which the judicial system is financed does not add optimism, either. The Cabinet of Ministers proposes some UAH 400 million worth of budget appropriations, meaning that the average employees will receive about 230 hryvnias a month, which is lower than the officially established living wage. "The court of law is the weakest link in the chain of state authorities", was how Vitaly Boiko, ex-Chairman of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, summed it all up recently.

Ukrainian citizens, especially business people, are afraid that the judicial reform will cause additional complications in court. MP Mykola Katerynchuk, a noted Ukrainian lawyer, Deputy Chairman of the VR Legal Policy Committee, kindly agreed to answer The Ukrainian's questions on the subject.

Do you not think that the judicial reform will result in the courts showing an even poorer performance?

If a citizen or businessman believes that there are obstacles in achieving a certain result, he ought to send a letter to Parliament. The MPs will read the letter and study the situation. Thus contacts between Parliament, the people, and the business community will grow stronger. Business people may tell Parliament how it is best, in their opinion, to go about upgrading the current legislation, so as to make handling cases easier. It is a natural process, the more so that the intellectual potential of Parliament and subdivisions assisting in its work is rather strong. Meaning that we have to join hands.

Are we confidently moving towards a civil society?

We have no alternative if we want to live in a democratic country.

Granted, but there are influential people of means who are not actually interested in the judicial reform. They can solve their problems without it.

Indeed, but this society and business people have come to realise that they need an effective judicial system. It is obvious that, unless the courts are provided with full budget financing, unless the judges are paid adequate wages, the situation will prompt them to pass biased judgements.

The current judicial system annoys people. There are countless complaints.

Thank God, the judicial system is a chain of many links. If you are convinced that the first instance is unjust, you can turn to the next one. Moreover, Ukraine is trying to become a fully fledged member of the European Community. Several world and European conventions have been ratified, allowing one to defend one's rights not only at the highest instance, the Supreme Court of Ukraine, but also at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

There is also the objective issue of professionalism. How soon will the judicial reform manifest itself in the supremacy of law, considering the judges' current situation and qualifications?

The cadre issue is very acute. But again I wouldn't resort to generalisations. My experience shows that the upper level judges are sufficiently qualified. From what I know, most complaints regard the lower courts. Serious problems appear when judges are people with little experience or none. The new Law "On Legal Proceedings" envisages the establishment of the Judicial Academy which will be directly responsible for professional training. This gives one hope.

It's true that a lot of things depend on subsidisation. We must keep an eye on the budgetary process. I hope that the 2003 budget will be the first to provide the real prerequisites for the judicial reform. Such changes may take a couple of years, but in the end we'll have a judicial system that attest to the existence of a civil society.

Foreign businessmen are often reluctant to turn to the Ukrainian courts; they belive that this won't solve their problems anyway - unless envelopes are slipped into the right pockets.

Yes, I am aware of this attitude. In some cases they are right, because foreign business people are accustomed to receive well motivated judgements and full legal protection, which is provided without delay. Although some cases can take several years. When they have to deal with our judicial system they are, mildly speaking, surprised. The only thing I would recommend is don't be afraid and don't give any bribes. No envelopes!

I must say that companies having to deal with the law and courts have accumulated a certain cadre and institutional-legal potential over the short period in which our young state could develop. If a foreign company or a private businessman is resolved to do business in Ukraine, wants to have it reliably protected from unlawful encroachments and rights properly defended in court, companies and businessman ought to hire local experts. They know our laws and ways to quickly restore violated rights and prevent a repetition of such transgressions.

Again, one shouldn't generalise; if a company fails it doesn't mean that another one will follow suit or that doing business is impossible in Ukraine. It is necessary to analyse every such case. If there are lawful grounds, I'm almost one hundred percent sure that justice will triumph in the end.

The judicial reform is in progress in Ukraine. The Law "On Legal Proceedings" was enacted in February 2002. The Court of Cassation, Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Administrative Court were established this summer. The newly founded Judicial Administration will start functioning on January 1, 2003. The new Chairman of the Supreme Court, Vasyl Malarenko, was elected on November 11. This candidate has been mentioned a lot in the press, but most of the attention - in the media and even at the recent convention of judges - was focused on the issues of state financing, specifically on the ridiculously small budget allocation. So despite the new law, the new codes of practice, etc., the courts have other things to consider, which means that the prospects for judicial reform remain vague.