Problematic issues of the public integrity council under martial law

Purpose. formulate the author's own approaches to understanding the legal basis for the functioning and mechanism of the Public Integrity Council in the context of judicial reform with a view to the effective administration of justice. Methodology. The methodology includes a comprehensive analysis and a synthesis of available scientific and theoretical information. It is includes the formulation of relevant conclusions and recommendations. Such methods of scientific knowledge were used: terminological, logical-semantic, functional, systemic-structural, logical-normative. Results. The study recognized that the prestige of the judicial profession is crucial for the functioning of this professional group value, as it contributes to a universal sense of social justice and affirms the sense of the legal institutions as a whole. At the same time, a judge who enjoys prestige is better able to do good, so caring about building his or her prestige is one of the ways in which the profession is ethically good, and thus a moral obligation of every judge. The prestige of the profession is a public good, the entire judiciary is working on its content, a judge can use the authority developed by colleagues, but also miss it, destroying the work of entire generations. Originality. The study found that the judge's professional activity is focused on justice, the judge implements the law, which is related to justice and it must be fair, it is difficult to disagree with the thesis that it works for the greater good. Justice, however, is a good thing that a judge's full concern does not require twofold actions: first, careful and responsible performance of all tasks, which aim to establish and maintain justice, and second, constant building and maintaining the prestige of the profession itself. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used to develop provisions, conclusions and recommendations on the state judicial policy in the field of administration of justice, to improve the level of relevant state decision-making in this area, and also to further improve legislation in the field of the judiciary.