The reform of local self-government, whose main stage was completed in 2020, fundamentally reshaped Ukraine’s administrative and territorial structure. Instead of more than 450 districts, the country now has 136 larger ones. This, in turn, created the need to review the network of local general courts. Yet the judiciary still operates according to the old territorial division, which causes imbalances in workload and financing.
After Ukraine obtained EU candidacy in 2022, the issue became particularly pressing. In May 2025 the government approved the Rule of Law Roadmap, which lists among its priorities the optimization of the court network to improve access to justice.
A reform postponed by war
Discussions on optimizing the judicial map began back in 2021, but at the end of 2022, the process was suspended for the duration of martial law.
Under the Rule of Law Roadmap, however, the court network must be optimized within one year after the war ends, based on an agreed methodology, and the reorganized courts must become fully operational within the following year, with staffing completed and cases and resources transferred.
According to the State Judicial Administration of Ukraine (SJA), as of 23 February 2022, there were 587 local general courts in the country. About 160 were damaged and dozens completely destroyed by Russian aggression. Jurisdiction for many courts had to be reassigned, leaving judges in frontline regions and major cities burdened three- to five-fold above normal.
At the same time, the state continues to maintain an extensive network of small courts, some having only two or three judges and others having none at all. This drains resources that could instead fund digitalization and reconstruction.
Possible scenarios for reform
Two main scenarios for optimizing the judicial network are under discussion.
The first would retain about 220 local courts, while establishing branches in remote communities that would operate as part of larger courts. The second, more radical, scenario envisions reducing the network to 151 courts, combining jurisdictions and relying on digital services.
Under either approach, the number of local courts would shrink by almost threefold. In place of courts staffed by only two or three judges, consolidated courts would emerge—institutions capable of functioning without interruption even when a judge is on vacation, on assignment or on sick leave.
This reform would help equalize the workload indicators approved by the High Council of Justice (HCJ), enhance the stability of case hearings and cut administrative expenses.
The first step must be to develop a clear methodology for optimizing the court network. It is crucial to consider not only the new administrative division, case statistics and human-resource capacity but also economic, demographic and logistics factors that shape citizens’ real access to justice. Equally important are logistics—travel time, transportation options and the availability of online-filing mechanisms.
The chosen scenario could then be tested in pilot mode in two or three regions.
This pilot mode must be detailed, as a plan with defined goals, tasks, stages, resources, responsible institutions and expected outcomes. The process should be coordinated among the High Council of Justice, the State Judicial Administration, the High Qualification Commission of Judges and the President of Ukraine, who is responsible for initiating draft laws on the reorganization or liquidation of courts. The success of the reform will depend on a shared position among these institutions.
The findings should serve as the basis for a draft law on optimizing the judicial network, which, under the Rule of Law Roadmap, the Presidential Office, together with the HCJ, the parliament, the government and the SJA, must prepare within twelve months after martial law is lifted.
For now, the cost of such a reform remains unclear: estimates vary significantly across regions. Yet without it, the judiciary will be unable to develop—institutionally, infrastructurally or financially.
International experience: how EU countries did it
Ukraine is not the first country to face the challenge of reforming its judicial network. Many European states have already gone through this process, and their experience clearly shows: fewer courts do not mean less justice.
Finland: gradual reform with a focus on digitalization
Finland is one of the most successful examples of judicial optimization. Between 1993 and 2019, the country reduced the number of local courts from 100 to 20 while preserving citizens’ full access to justice.
The early years were difficult: equipment shortages, organizational confusion, resistance from judges and local communities unwilling to lose “their court.” The situation was aggravated by the absence of a unified electronic communication system between courts.
To overcome this, the government developed a clear optimization methodology, funded relocation and technical upgrades, and actively involved judges in planning. The Ministry of Justice held public consultations, openly explaining each stage of reform.
Key principles included:
- Gradual implementation: each stage lasted three to five years and was accompanied by public discussion;
- Workload analysis: optimization was based on CEPEJ (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice) data and national statistics on caseloads, population and transport accessibility;
- Digitalization: introduction of electronic filing systems, remote hearings and modern courtroom equipment;
- Judicial involvement: court chairs received change-management training, reducing institutional resistance;
- Functional differentiation: courts focused on criminal and civil disputes, while non-contentious matters were delegated to paralegals.
As a result, Finland cut judicial administrative costs by 25 percent, and public trust in justice rose significantly.
Lithuania: balancing efficiency and accessibility
Between 2018 and 2023, Lithuania carried out a far-reaching reform, reducing the number of district courts from 49 to 11 regional courts while creating 28 branches in remote areas. The goal was to improve efficiency without undermining accessibility.
Initially, the reform met resistance, especially among judges in small towns, where courts formed part of local identity. Politicians, too, lobbied to “keep” courts in their constituencies. To prevent conflicts, the government and judiciary agreed on objective optimization criteria, aligned with CEPEJ standards.
They applied the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method—an economic-mathematical tool that measures institutional efficiency by comparing resources used and results achieved. This helped identify which courts performed effectively and which merely consumed resources.
Core criteria included: caseload and case complexity, proportional staffing, population size and mobility, transport accessibility and level of digitalization.
The reform was implemented step by step—piloted in several regions first, then scaled up after positive outcomes. Communication was essential: judges were told that consolidation meant opportunity, not downsizing; citizens were assured that online services made justice more accessible.
In the end, the Lithuanian judiciary became less costly, more efficient and retained high public confidence.
Sweden: “justice closer to the citizen”
Sweden’s reform lasted more than 15 years. Its guiding principle was that the key is not the number of courts but accessibility to justice, and that judges should handle only those matters truly requiring their professional expertise.
Accordingly, issues that could be resolved by other institutions — such as land registration or marriage formalities — were transferred out of the courts’ jurisdiction. Judges focused exclusively on cases demanding judicial qualification.
One of the main challenges was conservatism of the judiciary (reluctance to adopt new formats like mobile hearings or online cases), opposition from court staff unions against staff reductions and insufficient technical readiness for e-justice.
Solutions included pilot “mobile courts” traveling to communities where permanent facilities had been closed, large-scale staff training in digital tools and technical grants to local authorities for digitalization.
This replaced many in-person sessions with remote hearings, electronic services and mobile court sittings. The number of courts fell from 96 to 48 without loss of access, while public trust in courts remained around 80 percent.
France: rationalization without losing trust
Between 2018 and 2020, France implemented a large-scale judicial reform that merged small tribunals into shared jurisdictional centers. The goal was to eliminate duplication of functions, use personnel and resources more efficiently, and account for regional and demographic factors.
Planning relied on data about population size and density, projections through 2040, income levels and social vulnerability. In regions with higher income inequality, additional judicial resources were allocated, seeing as those areas tend to produce more complex civil disputes.
The reform met resistance from judges and notaries who feared “centralized justice,” and from politicians who denounced it as “a blow to the provinces.” To ease tensions, the government conducted public consultations, preserved “justice points” in localities and introduced mobile court sessions.
Ultimately, the number of courts decreased from 1,190 to 863, the average case-processing time fell by 20 percent, and public confidence in the judiciary remained stable.
How to apply this experience in Ukraine
To ensure that court optimization does not turn into a mechanical downsizing, the reform must be implemented wisely and gradually. Decisions should be informed by reliable data, including court workload statistics, demographic trends, economic and social indicators, transportation accessibility and security conditions.
It is important to start with carefully measured steps: first, to implement changes in several pilot regions, assess their effectiveness and only then scale up nationwide.
Success will depend on transparent communication: judges, court staff and citizens must clearly understand that the reform means renewal, better working conditions and higher-quality services, not the closure of courts.
Digitalization must become the core of renewal. Electronic courts, video hearings and online access to documents will make justice more convenient and accessible. At the same time, powers should be rationally redistributed between courts and other bodies so that judges focus exclusively on issues requiring their professional competence.
The key to success lies not in speed but in consistency and professionalism. Without effective management and coordinated decisions, even the best methodology will remain on paper. Only stability and shared responsibility among all stakeholders can build a modern judicial map—one that meets EU standards while remaining adapted to Ukraine’s realities.