Analysis and evaluation of ENCJ Survey on the Independence of the Judiciary 2025

Prepared by Marina Barsuk

‍

The report of the European Network of Justice Councils (ENCJ) for 2025 is the fifth study to analyse judges' perceptions of judicial independence in 32 judicial systems in 30 European countries (for the UK the courts of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are singled out), including Ukraine.

The survey covered 19,136 judges (a record number of judicial bodies and a record number of judges) and provides a detailed analysis of the state of judicial independence, problems and progress in this area.

A key aspect of the report is that the survey was conducted anonymously, the target participation rate (20% of judges) was reached in most countries, although in some large countries (e.g. Italy, Czech Republic) the response rate was lower.

The ENCJ survey methodology remained unchanged compared to previous years, providing comparability of data from 2015. All judges received invitations to participate through the governing bodies, which sent letters referring to an anonymous online survey on the SurveyMonkey platform, translated into different languages. Data on gender, experience, type of court, cases and membership in judges' associations were collected.

Also, which is noteworthy, Ukraine and Moldova participated in the survey this year for the first time.

Let us dwell separately on the sections of the survey.

1. General perception of independence

1.1. Assessment of the independence of judges

According to the 2025 survey, the independence of judges in different judicial systems is assessed on a 10-point scale from 5.9 to 9.8. Ukraine has the lowest score (5.9), followed by Montenegro (6.8), Hungary (7.0), Bulgaria and Bosnia and Herzegovina (7.1 each). The highest scores (9 and above) were scored by Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. The average unweighted score by country is 8.55, which is 0.2 lower than in 2022 (8.7).

The personal independence of judges is rated higher than the overall independence of the judicial system (9.0 vs. 8.4). The difference between these indicators increases in countries with lower scores of independence, which may indicate a self-serving bias.

1.2. Independence of the Judiciary Councils

The independence of the judiciary councils is rated lower than the independence of the judges, with an average score of 7.0 in 2025 (6.9 in 2022). The lowest scores are Spain (3.4), Bulgaria (4.3), Hungary, Ukraine and Bosnia and Herzegovina (around 5.5). Ireland and the United Kingdom received the highest scores, where councils are advisory in nature or include all judges.

Regarding the mechanisms to protect the independence of the judiciary, only 48% of respondents believe that councils have the appropriate tools. In Spain (20%) and Hungary (25%) this percentage is particularly low, with Hungary down from 35% in 2022. There is also a decrease in the Netherlands (from 44% to 24%), but judges here are less negative than in Hungary.

The results of the 2025 survey therefore indicate stability in the perception of personal independence of judges, but indicate a decrease in the overall assessment of judicial independence compared to 2022. The independence of the judiciary remains problematic in several countries, notably in Spain, Bulgaria and Hungary, while mechanisms to defend independence are often considered inadequate.

Analysis of the results of the ENCJ 2025 survey shows that Ukraine has the lowest level of independence of judges (5.9 out of 10 - point scale) and low independence of judiciary councils (about 5.5). These figures highlight the serious challenges in the judicial system.

But these results are not a reason for despair, but a challenge that encourages active change. These results are a clear benchmark for improving the judicial system to bring it closer to the standards of leading countries such as Ireland or the United Kingdom.

2. Execution of court decisions

Enforcement of judicial decisions is a key aspect of judicial independence, as the independence of judges loses practical value if decisions are not enforced. A 2025 survey shows that only 43% of judges on average across the country believe governments typically enforce judgments that are contrary to their interests, compared with 51% in 2022. The high level of uncertainty among respondents (32%) indicates the difficulty of assessing this issue.

The difference between countries is significant: from 6% in Bulgaria to 77% in Ireland, Norway and Sweden. In Italy, 55% of respondents believe that such decisions are usually not implemented, which is the highest non-fulfillment rate.

The independence of the judiciary and the enforcement of judicial decisions by the government are closely intertwined, as evidenced by a strong correlation (coefficient 0.74).

Enforcement of court decisions remains a problematic issue, the relevance of which is growing. The decrease in the percentage of judges who believe that governments enforce decisions contrary to their interests (from 51% in 2022 to 43% in 2025) highlights the need to strengthen enforcement mechanisms. A strong correlation between judicial independence and the execution of decisions indicates their interdependence.

In the context of Ukraine, only 15% of judges believe that during the past three years in the country court decisions that were contrary to the interests of the government were usually carried out. 45% of respondents could not give a definite answer, and 40% disagreed with this statement.

The high level of uncertainty among judges, as well as a significant proportion of those who do not believe in the real implementation of such decisions, signal limited confidence in the independence of the judiciary in practice. This indicates the need to strengthen institutional guarantees of enforcement of judicial decisions, as well as to create mechanisms that made it impossible for the executive to ignore court decisions.

3. Impact on strengthening the independence of the judiciary through membership in the European Union

According to the 2025 survey, 62% of respondents across all judicial systems believe that membership in the European Union (or EEA) or the prospect of joining the EU has helped strengthen their independence. The highest rates of support for this statement are observed in the Baltic countries and Romania.

In Northern European countries, conviction rates are lower, and judges are more likely to express uncertainty about the impact of the EU. This may be due to the already high level of independence in these countries, which leaves little room for improvement, or to other factors that influence perceptions.

Compared to the previous survey, the results remained virtually unchanged, indicating a stable perception of the EU's influence on judicial independence.

EU membership or the prospect of accession has a positive effect on the perception of judicial independence, especially in the Baltic countries and Romania. At the same time, in Northern European countries, judges are less confident about this influence, which may reflect both a high baseline level of independence and other contextual factors.

In Ukraine, 44% of judges believe that the independence of the judiciary is strengthened by membership in the European Union, the prospect of joining the EU or membership in the EEA. This indicates that there is moderate optimism among Ukrainian judges regarding the impact of European integration processes on the state of independence of the judiciary.

The results of the survey show that almost half of Ukrainian judges see the move towards the EU as a factor of strengthening judicial independence. This is an important signal, since the prospect of European integration is not only a foreign policy benchmark, but also an internal stimulus to reform and clean up the judiciary.

‍4. Aspects of independence: related to the consideration of cases

4.1. Improper pressure on judges

According to a 2025 survey, only 6% of judges in Europe report inappropriate pressure regarding their decisions, of which less than 1% experience it regularly. Uncertainty is low (3%). However, in some countries, such as Ukraine (12%) and Northern Ireland (14%), the percentage of judges who are under pressure exceeds 10%. In Ukraine, the sources of pressure are most often the parties to the cases and their lawyers. It is important to note that the feeling of pressure does not mean that the judges give in to it. Compared to 2022 (92% of judges were not under pressure), in 2025 this figure dropped to 91%.

4.2. External pressure

4.2.1. Corruption

The perception of corruption in judicial systems is 9%, of which 1% consider it regular, 4.5% - occasionally, and 3.5% - very rare. Uncertainty is significant (21%). Judicial systems are divided into four categories:

No corruption (≥ 95% of judges are confident): Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom.

Low level of corruption (75— 94%): Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Spain.

Moderate level of corruption (30— 74%): between 6% and 39% of judges believe there is corruption, with uncertainty of 15— 54%.

High level of corruption (< 30%): Bulgaria (22%), Bosnia and Herzegovina (12%), Croatia (12%), Ukraine (19%), Greece (15%).

In Ukraine, 19% of judges report corruption, which is one of the highest rates. However, the perception of corruption in Europe as a whole fell from 71% in 2022 to 74% in 2025, indicating a slight improvement.

4.2.2. Division of cases

Improper distribution of cases is a potential source of corruption if the mechanisms allow for discretionary decisions. In Hungary (30%), Spain (22%) and Greece (17%), a significant proportion of judges consider the distribution of cases inappropriate, with a high level of uncertainty. Overall in Europe, the situation is stable (6% in 2025 versus 7% in 2022). In Hungary, the situation has worsened.

4.2.3. Influence of media and social networks

Media influence on court decisions is 19% (unchanged from 2022). The highest rates were in Croatia (51%), Ukraine (48%), Slovakia (47%), Greece (40%) and Hungary (38%).

In Ukraine, this high level indicates significant external pressure. The influence of social networks is lower (12%), but in Ukraine 40% of judges consider it significant, which is the highest indicator, along with Slovakia (34%) and Croatia (30%). The impact of social networks has increased from 11% in 2022 to 12% in 2025.

4.2.4. Threats and violence

Threats and intimidation are a problem in half of the judicial systems, with more than 10% of judges reporting sporadic cases, including Ukraine, Northern Ireland, Norway and Hungary. In Ukraine, this is combined with a high level of perception of corruption and media influence, creating a challenging environment for judges. Physical attacks are rare, but every case is serious.

4.3. Internal pressure

4.3.1. Disciplinary sanctions

The pressure due to the threat of disciplinary sanctions is felt by 5% of judges on average. In Ukraine, this figure is much higher - 39%, which is the highest in Europe, followed by Moldova (12%). In Denmark and the Netherlands, the pressure is minimal. Compared to 2022 (4%), in 2025 this figure increased to 5%. In Ukraine, the high level of this pressure may indicate systemic problems in the judicial system.

4.3.2. Pressure of the court leadership

Decision content: rare (3%), highest in Scotland and Northern Ireland (up to 5%). In Ukraine, this pressure is not isolated, but in general it is low.

Timeliness: more frequent (11%), in 14 systems 10— 20% of judges feel pressured. In Ukraine, Romania, Moldova and Denmark, the rates are low.

Production objectives: the most common (16%), with high rates in Croatia, France, Hungary and Spain (> 20%). In Ukraine, Bulgaria, Moldova and Denmark, pressure on production targets is minimal.

5. Aspects of independence: appointment and promotion of judges

First appointment of judges

According to the 2025 survey, in Denmark, the Netherlands and Northern Ireland alone, more than 90% of judges believe that their first appointment as a judge is based solely on ability and experience, with a low level of uncertainty. In Hungary (23%) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (24%), this figure is lowest. In Hungary, confidence in the appointment process fell significantly from 40% in 2022, while in Bosnia and Herzegovina the situation remained stable. The average level of insecurity across countries increased from 16% in 2022 to 17% in 2025. Unfortunately, 15% of the judges surveyed in Ukraine believe that judges took office solely on the basis of ability and experience over the past three years. 50% of the judges surveyed do not agree with this, 43% are not sure.

Appointment to the Supreme or Court of Cassation

The perception of appointments to higher courts is less positive. Only 11% of judges in Hungary, 22% in Spain and 24% in Bosnia and Herzegovina consider these appointments to be merit-based. Low rates are also in Greece (36%), Germany (34%), Italy (43%) and Portugal (45%). The average level of uncertainty decreased from 20% in 2022 to 19% in 2025. 19% of Ukrainian judges surveyed agree with this statement, 38% disagree.

Elevation of judges

Elevation in the courts of first and second instance receives more negative reviews than the first appointments. Denmark has the most positive results, while in Hungary 57% of judges believe that the promotion is not based solely on merit, and 21% are not sure. The average level of uncertainty remained stable at -21% in 2022 and 2025. Ukrainian judges in 54% gave a negative answer, 36% were not sure, only 10% gave a positive answer.

The appointment and promotion of judges remain problematic aspects of judicial independence. Hungary and Bosnia and Herzegovina stand out for low confidence in these processes, while Denmark shows the best results. The situation has generally not worsened since 2022, but needs to improve the transparency and objectivity of procedures in most judicial systems.

6. Aspects of independence: working conditions

Wage, pensions and retirement age

Pay and pension issues range from minor (Denmark, Netherlands) to critical. In Ukraine, 69% of judges and in Hungary 73% consider these factors as affecting independence - these are the highest indicators. Problems are also significant in Belgium, Estonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Slovenia and Spain (≥ 40%). In Lithuania, the situation improved from 61% in 2022 to 17% in 2025. Overall, the average number of judges who see pay as a problem has risen from 17% in 2022 to 21% in 2025.

Working hours

Working hours are a less significant problem, but in Spain 51% of judges consider it a factor that influences independence. High rates are also high in Belgium, France, Greece, Montenegro and Portugal. The overall average increased from 13% in 2022 to 17% in 2025.

Burden of affairs

Burden of affairs is a key issue affecting independence in many countries. On average, 28% of judges consider this a factor. Only Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands have low scores. The average has risen from 22% in 2022 to 27% in 2025.

Judicial resources

The lack of judicial resources is closely related to the workload of cases. On average, 27% of judges consider this a problem that affects independence. The situation worsened from 22% in 2022 to 27% in 2025.

Digitalization

Digitalization added to the survey after the COVID-19 pandemic is less significant, but in 10 judicial systems, more than 20% of judges believe it affects independence. The average has risen from 15% in 2022 to 16% in 2025.

Behavior at work

Work behavior, including sexual harassment and discrimination, is rarely seen as an influence factor. In France, Greece, Hungary and Slovenia, more than 10% of judges consider this a problem. The average fell from 7% in 2022 to 6% in 2025.

Comparison of factors

Rating of the influence of factors on independence (country average, 2025):

Case load and judicial resources: 27% (22% in 2022).

Wage, pensions, retirement age: 21% (17% in 2022).

Working hours: 17% (13% in 2022).

Digitalization: 16% (15% in 2022).

Behavior at work: 6% (7% in 2022).

Situation in Ukraine

In Ukraine, 69% of judges consider wages, pensions and retirement age to be a factor affecting independence, which is one of the highest rates along with Hungary (73%).

Working conditions have a significant impact on judicial independence, and this problem is exacerbated. Case workload and lack of judicial resources are the most critical factors followed by pay and working hours. In Ukraine, wages are a serious problem, which can limit the autonomy of judges. The positive example of Lithuania shows that rapid reforms can improve the situation.

7th. Accountability

According to a 2025 survey, only 4% of judges on average across all countries disagree that judges adhere to high ethical standards, an improvement from 5% in 2022. The highest level of dissent in Greece (14%). The uncertainty is 13% on average, but in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Croatia the figure is significantly higher.

Regarding the effectiveness of the judiciary in addressing misconduct by judges, 11% of respondents believe that the authorities act inefficiently (unchanged from 2022), and 25% are not sure. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Greece, Slovenia and Spain ≥ 20% of judges consider the measures insufficient.

Regarding the fight against corruption in the courts, 8% of respondents consider the actions of the judiciary ineffective (7% in 2022) and 26% are not sure. The worst results were in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Montenegro and Slovakia, where ≥ 20% of judges indicate insufficient effectiveness.

The accountability of the judiciary remains problematic, especially in the fight against misconduct and corruption. Although the perception of judges' ethical standards has improved (from 5% to 4% disagreement), the effectiveness of measures against misconduct and corruption is of concern in a number of countries, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Croatia. The high level of uncertainty (25 — 26%) indicates the need for more transparent and efficient accountability mechanisms.

In Ukraine, the perception of the accountability of the judiciary is generally positive, especially compared to a number of other European countries. According to a 2025 survey, 76% of Ukrainian judges believe that their colleagues adhere to high ethical standards, which is evidence of trust within the professional environment.

In addition, 51% of judges in Ukraine believe that the judiciary responds effectively to cases of misconduct by judges, and 55% - that the judicial system effectively fights corruption in its own ranks.

At the same time, a significant proportion of judges still remain either unsure or critical about the effectiveness of existing control mechanisms. This shows the need to further improve the transparency of disciplinary procedures and to ensure real accountability in the judicial system. Maintaining high ethical standards requires not only internal professional support, but also trust from society, which directly depends on a consistent and fair response to incidents of violations.

8. Perception of respect for the independence of the judiciary

Judicial bodies, including the administration of courts, councils of the judiciary, the highest courts, and judges' associations, generally demonstrate a high level of respect for the independence of judges. The highest courts receive the highest ratings, followed by the governing bodies of the courts, while the councils of the judiciary have lower scores. In Ukraine, Hungary and Spain, ≥ 20% of judges believe that the judiciary councils do not respect their independence, which is one of the highest rates. In Hungary, respect has declined: from 72% in 2022 to 59% in 2025 for the judiciary councils and from 76% to 45% for the Supreme Court. Judges' associations have the lowest level of disrespect (4% in 2022 and 2025). Average indicators of disrespect:

Judiciary Councils: 8% (2022 and 2025).

Court leadership: 8% (7% in 2022).

Highest courts: 5% (4% in 2022).

Constitutional courts: 7% (4% in 2022).

In Greece and Italy, councils of administrative courts are perceived as more respectful of independence than councils of ordinary courts.

Prosecutors show the highest level of respect for the independence of judges (5% disrespect in 2025, as in 2022), followed by lawyers (9% disrespect, unchanged) and parties to cases (11% disrespect, unchanged). The high level of uncertainty about respect from parties and lawyers indicates that respect is not predominant. Data for Ukraine in this category are not available.

Respect from government, parliament, media and social networks is much lower. Only 51% of judges on average feel respected by the government (56% in 2022), with 27% believing that there is no respect (25% in 2022).

In Ukraine, only 10% of judges feel respected by the government, which is one of the lowest rates, along with Slovenia (18%) and Hungary (20%). Low scores were also found in France (37%), Spain (30%) and Scotland (34%). For parliaments, the level of disrespect has risen from 23% in 2022 to 26% in 2025. From the media, 46% of judges are respected (29% disrespected in 2025, 28% in 2022), and from social networks - 33% (30% disrespected in 2025, 27% in 2022). The high level of uncertainty about social networks indicates their growing influence.

Difference between categories

Respect for independence is highest among the judiciary, lowest among parties and their representatives, and lowest from government, parliament, media and social media. In Denmark, respect is high: 98% from the parties and 92% from the government. In Norway (84% of the parties, 90% of the government) and Finland (86% and 77%), the results are also positive. In the Netherlands, respect from the government has fallen from 74% to 51% and from parliament from 56% to 41%, possibly due to the 2023 elections. There are also significant differences in France (71% of the parties, 37% of the government), Spain (81% and 30%), Slovenia (60% and 18%) and Hungary (79% and 20%).

Situation in Ukraine

In Ukraine, the perception of respect for judicial independence on the part of domestic judicial bodies is generally positive. In particular, 83% of Ukrainian judges believe that the court leadership, including the chairman, respects their independence, which indicates a relatively high level of trust within the judiciary. However, the situation with other actors looks less optimistic.

Thus, 13% of judges do not agree that the parties to the proceedings respect their independence, and another 37% of judges do not believe that lawyers show due respect for the independence of the court. This indicates the need to strengthen professional ethics and standards of conduct for litigants, especially lawyers.

Also, in Ukraine, only 10% of judges respect their independence from the government, which is one of the lowest rates. In addition, ≥ 20% of judges believe that the judiciary councils do not respect their independence, indicating serious systemic problems.

Respect for the independence of the judiciary is the highest of the judiciary, but significantly lower than that of the government, parliament, the media and social networks. In Ukraine, the situation is particularly problematic: only 10% of judges feel respected by the government, and the judiciary councils are often perceived as non-independent. The decline in respect in countries such as Hungary and the Netherlands highlights the need for greater interaction between branches of government. To strengthen independence, transparent mechanisms and increase citizen confidence are needed, which can influence the behavior of government and parliament.

Changes in independence by experience

Judges with experience of up to 10 years and more than 25 years are more likely to report significant improvements in independence. Intermediate groups indicate nonlinear progress. The 2025 results are similar to the previous survey. At the national level, most countries show improvements for judges with the shortest and longest experience. Net negative developments (more judges report declines) are observed in Belgium, Hungary, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine and Northern Ireland, contrasting with the previous survey for most of these countries.

Judicial independence in most countries remains high or has improved since 2015, notably in Spain, France, Slovakia, Lithuania and Romania. However, there are declines in Hungary, Montenegro, Greece and Slovenia.

In 2025, Ukraine participated for the first time in a study on the independence of the judiciary, so it is currently impossible to trace the dynamics of changes or draw conclusions about trends over time. However, further participation will allow in the future to analyze the progress or regression of the independence of the Ukrainian judicial system compared to other European countries.

10. Key findings

Evaluation of independence: Judges rate their independence positively. On a 10-point scale, the independence of the courts ranges from 5.9 (Ukraine) to 9.8, followed by Montenegro (6.8), Hungary (7.0), Bulgaria and Bosnia and Herzegovina (7.1 each). Personal independence is rated higher: from 6.8 to 9.9. Undue pressure on court decisions is rare.

Trends since 2015: Independence gradually improved through 2025, but this trend has stopped, with average scores unchanged or slightly lower compared to the previous survey. The experience of judges with long experience confirms the improvement in independence.

Difference by country: In most countries, independence is high or has improved, but Hungary, Montenegro, Greece (especially civil and criminal courts) and Slovenia have seen declines. Bosnia and Herzegovina has a consistently low score.

Judiciary Councils: The independence of the councils is estimated at between 3.4 and 9.7. Low scores in Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ukraine and Bosnia and Herzegovina; high (over 8) in Finland, Ireland, Romania, Great Britain. The existence of a council does not guarantee independence, which depends on the appointment procedures and actions of the council.

Appointment and promotion: In many countries, judges criticize appointment and promotion procedures, particularly to the Supreme Court/Court of Cassation, for lack of transparency and reasonableness.

Corruption and misconduct: Corruption is a problem in several countries where the judiciary is considered insufficiently effective in combating misconduct and corruption.

Management pressure: Court leadership rarely influences the content of decisions, but some judges feel pressure regarding timeliness and production performance.

Tensions with government bodies: Problems include government failure to enforce judicial decisions, low wages, high workloads, inadequate resources, and a lack of respect for independence from government and parliament, which is growing in many countries.

Media pressure: In most countries, judges feel undue pressure from (social) networks, which often do not respect their independence.

Intimidation and threats: In half of the countries, including Ukraine, the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland), Norway and Hungary, more than 10% of judges suffer intimidation or threats. Physical attacks are rare.

Situation in Ukraine

Ukraine has the lowest score of independence of courts (5.9), and the judiciary councils receive low marks. More than 10% of judges report intimidation or threats, indicating difficult conditions for independence.

Judges in Europe are generally positive about their independence, but identify systemic problems: low respect from government, parliament and the media, opaque appointments, corruption, insufficient resources and pressure. In Ukraine, the situation is particularly problematic due to the lowest independence score and threats to judges.

Ukraine's participation in the European Network of Judiciary Councils (ENCJ) research on respect for judicial independence is an important step towards strengthening the rule of law and European integration. For the first time, Ukraine has participated in such a large-scale international survey, which is a significant achievement and demonstrates our willingness to work according to European standards. This move shows that European judicial systems already view Ukraine as part of their professional environment, which is an extremely positive signal. Such cooperation underlines Ukraine's progress towards harmonizing the judicial system with European values, in particular in ensuring the independence of judges and increasing confidence in the judiciary.

In the study, approximately 500 judges out of 4,865 judges were interviewed, which is only a small percentage of the total number of judges in Ukraine. This relatively low participation indicates the need for more activity on the part of the judiciary.

Therefore, in the future, it is necessary to participate more actively in such surveys, because participation in such events is of great importance for marking our country as a full-fledged participant before joining the system of European countries. The data collected in these studies are disseminated throughout Europe and are the subject of discussion at international conferences, seminars and meetings within the European Network of Judicial Councils (ENCJ), where recommendations and strategies for improving judicial systems are developed.

Therefore, we call on judges to participate in such events and actively influence the formation of the future judicial system of Ukraine, which will meet the highest European standards.