Ukraine's European integration inevitably involves large-scale legislative changes and the adaptation of European practices. However, in some discussions, the question increasingly arises: are we truly implementing European experience, or are we creating our own hybrid models that do not exist in Europe itself, UNN reports.
One such discussion concerns the appointment and dismissal of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
Recently, a number of reformers from the public sector have insisted: the Prosecutor General should be elected through competitions with the participation of activists, appealing to "best European practices." But is this true?
What Ukraine has committed to do
Former prosecutor of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office Stanislav Bronytskyi reminds that on December 11, 2025, a joint statement was adopted by the EU Commissioner for Enlargement and the Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration. One of the points of this document states: "To conduct a comprehensive review of the procedure for selecting and dismissing the Prosecutor General in order to bring it into line with best European practices."
So, according to the former prosecutor, the statement does not contain any mention of a competition. It also does not explain what exactly should be considered "best European practices." However, it was on the basis of this wording that a political narrative emerged: Ukraine must have a competition for the position of Prosecutor General.
So what is actually a "best European practice"?
Bronytskyi cites real European practices of economically developed states whose systems are considered exemplary.
According to a combination of indicators (nominal GDP, GDP per capita, GDP at PPP, HDI), the top 5 European countries include: Germany, Switzerland, France, Great Britain, Sweden. And this is how the Prosecutor General is appointed in these countries, Bronytskyi says.
Germany: the candidate is nominated by the Federal Minister of Justice, appointed by the Federal President.
Switzerland: the Prosecutor General is elected by the Federal Assembly (a joint session of both chambers of parliament).
France: the candidate is proposed by the Minister of Justice, appointed by the President of the Republic.
Great Britain: appointed by the Prime Minister, formally approved by the monarch.
Sweden: the appointment is made by the government.
None of these countries hold a competition.
And this is not a "deviation from standards," but a European standard as such.
So what's the problem?
The problem is not in Europe. The problem is in interpretations. As People's Deputy Serhiy Vlasenko aptly noted, the Constitution of Ukraine directly defines the procedure for appointing the Prosecutor General.
Our Constitution states that the candidate for Prosecutor General is appointed by the President of Ukraine with the consent of the Verkhovna Rada. That's all. There are no competitions
Vlasenko also skeptically assesses the very idea of competitions in their current form.
Over the past few years, we have seen that these competitions often resemble a fiction. The winners are known in advance, manipulations during the procedures
As an example, he cited competitions for appellate administrative courts, where, according to the Temporary Investigative Commission, current members of the High Council of Justice, relatives of members of the High Qualification Commission of Judges, and employees of the competitive bodies themselves were among the leaders.
Constitution: another important argument
Volodymyr Vatras, a member of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Legal Policy, emphasizes that changes to the Constitution regarding the procedure for electing the Prosecutor General are not planned.
The position of Prosecutor General is constitutional. Changes to the Constitution under martial law are impossible
Moreover, according to him, the parliament currently has no plans to change the procedure for appointing the Prosecutor General, and the deputies have no complaints about the current head of the prosecutor's office.