АДМIНIСТРАТИВНО-ПРАВОВI ЗАСАДИ ПРОВЕДЕННЯ СУДОВОЇ РЕФОРМИ В УКРАЇНI: СУЧАСНИЙ СТАН ТА ПЕРСПЕКТИВИ РОЗВИТКУ

Abstract

The article analyzes judicial reform in Ukraine. The main changes in the judicial system of Ukraine are considered. The national judicial system is characterized by the updated provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Judicial System and Status of Judges”. Pursuant to the reform, the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the Supreme Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases, the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Administrative Court of Ukraine ceased their activity. Two high specialized courts have been set up - the High Court on Intellectual Property and the High Anticorruption Court. Courts of general jurisdiction were superseded by district general courts, binding to the administrative-territorial division of Ukraine into districts, liquidated regional courts of appeal and created courts of appeal in districts. Despite the attempt by the authors of the judicial reform to simplify the judicial system, the creation of the Supreme Court made it much more difficult. In particular, the Law sets out the structure of the higher court, according to which the court consists of other courts. Thus, the Law of Ukraine “On Judiciary and Status of Judges” deprives the Supreme Court of the constitutional status of the single highest court in the judicial system of Ukraine, since it grants this status to 5 courts at once - the Supreme Court and the Court of Cassation for Administrative, Economic, Criminal and Civil Courts. At the same time, the definition of such a structure contravenes paragraph 11 of the Transitional Provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, which clearly distinguishes between the Supreme Court and the courts of cassation.

Specialized courts have also been set up in the reform process: the High Court for Intellectual Property and the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court. Thus, the legislator singled out the above specialized courts in the judicial system, and thus gave special importance to disputes in the field of intellectual property and corruption violations. In addition, it is inappropriate to call the High Court a court which may treat cases as a first instance.

However, the judicial system of Ukraine cannot be called perfect at present. There are a number of problems that have not yet been fully resolved at this stage. These include, in particular, the long period of qualification evaluation of judges of the first and  appellate instance, the total staff shortage in dozens of courts of Ukraine and, as a consequence, the violation of the terms of court proceedings in courts of all instances.

Therefore, this law is rather conflicting and contradictory. The problems described in the publication do not indicate the possible effective contribution of this bill to the development and establishment of the judiciary in Ukraine, but rather show the defocus of the proposed changes and the shift of emphasis on really important and topical issues to the minor ones (which are also important, however, objectively are not top priority).