The article is dedicated to the analysis of judicial reform in Croatia and the potential application of its experience to Ukraine in the context of ensuring judicial independence, enhancing the efficiency of justice, and combating corruption. The main stages of the reform of the Croatian judicial system are examined, including the implementation of transparent procedures for the selection of judges, the establishment of an anti-corruption infrastructure, and the adaptation of judicial processes to European standards. Special attention is given to measures aimed at increasing public trust in the judiciary, strengthening mechanisms for oversight of judges' activities, and safeguarding their independence. The study outlines the key challenges faced by Croatia on its path to European integration, including political pressure on the judiciary, personnel issues, and the need to strengthen judicial accountability. A comparative analysis of reforms in Croatia and Ukraine is conducted, identifying similarities and differences in their legal systems. The role of anti-corruption bodies, such as USKOK in Croatia, and their impact on reducing judicial corruption is specifically analyzed. The article also highlights the influence of judicial reform on the European integration process and the fulfillment of rule of law criteria defined by the European Union. It is concluded that Croatia’s experience can be valuable for Ukraine; however, its implementation requires careful adaptation to the national legal environment. A number of recommendations are provided for the further development of Ukraine’s judicial system, including improvements in the judge selection process, reinforcement of judicial independence, and enhancement of public oversight mechanisms. The article outlines prospects for the introduction of new legal instruments that will contribute to strengthening public trust in the judiciary in Ukraine. Keywords: judicial reform, judicial independence, European integration, anti-corruption, rule of law, legal system, efficiency of justice, anti-corruption bodies, judicial accountability.
МЕЛЬНИЧЕНКО et al. (Sun,) studied this question.