In national systems where the separation of powers applies, the executive branch, especially its high-level officials, must refrain from actions and statements aimed at influencing ongoing cases. If representatives of the executive branch intervene with the aim of influencing a pending case, objective impartiality in that case is violated. Acts that can be characterized as interference can manifest in different ways. Interference can occur through attitudes and statements such as making a public speech or giving a statement to the press. Various complaints regarding executive interference have been examined by the ECHR. One of these concerns a case brought by a Russian company in Ukraine. In this incident, while the case was ongoing, the President of Ukraine made a statement to the effect that “the state’s interests should be protected when the high arbitration tribunal makes a decision”. The ECHR ruled that a justified and reasonable doubt regarding the independence and impartiality of the arbitration panel was created, irrespective of whether the President’s statement influenced the outcome of the case or what the reasons for the intervention were. The ECHR also noted in its decision that it saw no reason to speculate on what effect such interventions might have on the course of the proceedings in question, and that in the circumstances of the present case, the applicant company’s concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the courts were reasonable. Therefore, such interventions from the executive branch of the state demonstrated a lack of respect for the judiciary itself. (see. Sovtransavto Holding/Ukraine Judgment, 2002, pr.2-, 21, 22, 80 and 81). A book recommendation.