ORGANIZATIONAL AND LEGAL MECHANISM FOR STRENGTHENING THE AUTHORITY OF THE JUDICIARY IN UKRAINE: A CONCEPTUAL MODEL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66556/2522-4549.48.hdanskyi-n1Keywords:
authority of the judiciary, authority of a judge, judicial reform, efficiency of justice, judicial independence, public trust in the judiciary, organizational and legal mechanism, judicial ethicsAbstract
The article presents a comprehensive study of the organizational and legal mechanism for strengthening the authority of the judiciary in Ukraine. A conceptual model integrating three interrelated levels of judicial authority – institutional, organizational, and individual – is substantiated. At the institutional level, the evolution of the normative enshrinement of the concept of "authority of the judiciary" in Ukrainian legislation from independence to the present is analyzed, revealing the absence of a legal definition, which leads to ambiguity in the conceptual apparatus. At the organizational level, the relationship between court efficiency and the authority of the judiciary is examined using data from annual evaluations of local general courts for the period 2017–2023. A persistent pattern is identified whereby the level of trust in the judiciary among persons who have directly interacted with courts significantly exceeds the general level of public trust, confirming the decisive role of individual court performance in shaping authority. At the individual level, the distinction between formal and informal authority of a judge is substantiated. Formal authority is determined by the totality of guarantees of the status of a judge and their actual enforcement, while informal authority derives from society's recognition of a judge's capacity to resolve legal conflicts fairly. An integrated model for strengthening judicial authority is proposed that accounts for the interaction of normative, organizational, and ethical factors, as well as the role of civil society institutions. Prospective directions for developing the organizational and legal mechanism for strengthening the authority of the judiciary in the context of Ukraine's European integration commitments are identified.References
=== REFERENCES (APA) ===
1. Rozporiadzhennia Holovy Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy No. 1539-XII vid 10.09.1991 [Order of the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine No. 1539-XII of 10.09.1991]. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1539-12#Text
2. Pro zastosuvannia zakonodavstva, shcho zabezpechuie nezalezhnist suddiv: Postanova Plenumu Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy No. 4 vid 12.04.1996 [On the application of legislation ensuring the independence of judges: Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine No. 4 of 12.04.1996]. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0004700-96#Text
3. Pro vidnovlennia doviry do sudovoi vlady v Ukraini: Zakon Ukrainy No. 1188-VII vid 08.04.2014 [On restoring trust in the judiciary in Ukraine: Law of Ukraine No. 1188-VII of 08.04.2014]. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1188-18#Text
4. Profesiina etyka pravosuddia: Rezoliutsiia Rady Suddiv Ukrainy vid 21.09.2018 [Professional ethics of justice: Resolution of the Council of Judges of Ukraine of 21.09.2018]. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/nr001414-18#Text
5. Moskvych, L. M. (2011). Suspilna dovira do sudu yak pokaznyk efektyvnosti sudovoi vlady [Public trust in the court as an indicator of the effectiveness of the judiciary]. Visnyk Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy, 2, 25–30.
6. Podtserkovnyi, O. P. (2011). Pro protsesualni chynnyky pidvyshchennia avtorytetu suddi ta sudu [On procedural factors for increasing the authority of the judge and the court]. Naukovi pratsi Natsionalnoho universytetu «Odeska yurydychna akademiia», 10, 113–123.
7. Potylchak, O. I. (2014). Dobir ta pidhotovka suddiv: analiz mizhnarodno-pravovykh aktiv [Selection and training of judges: analysis of international legal acts]. Yurydychna nauka, 11, 173–180.
8. Kriuchko, N. I. (2019). Oznaky sudovoi vlady [Signs of the judiciary] (Candidate’s thesis). Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv.
9. Definition of Judicial Authority. Retrieved from https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/judicial-authority
10. Rubtsov, S. S. (2016). Innovatsiini tekhnolohii v mekhanizmi zabezpechennia transparentnosti sudovoi vlady [Innovative technologies in the mechanism of ensuring transparency of the judiciary]. Pravo ta innovatsiine suspilstvo, 1(6). Retrieved from http://apir.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Rubtsov6.pdf
11. Kablak, P. I. (2013). Sudova vlada ta hromadskist: problemy vyroblennia vzaiemodii [Judiciary and the public: problems of developing interaction]. Naukovi zapysky Lvivskoho universytetu biznesu ta prava, 11, 215–218.
12. Luspenyk, D. D. (2010). Zakonnist, obgruntovanist i spravedlyvist sudovoho rishennia – osnovni chynnyky avtorytetu sudovoi vlady [Legality, reasonableness and fairness of a court decision – main factors of the authority of the judiciary]. Visnyk Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy, 1, 10–12.
13. Khimych, V. M. (2009). Nezalezhnist suddiv ta orhanizatsiini zasady zabezpechennia yikh diialnosti [Independence of judges and organizational principles of ensuring their activities]. Sudova apeliatsiia, 1(14), 118–123.
14. Stashkiv, N. (2018). Avtorytet pravosuddia VS svoboda vyrazhennia pohliadiv [Authority of justice vs. freedom of expression]. Aktualni problemy pravoznavstva, 3, 45–52.
15. Bakharieva, H. (2014). Porushennia pravyl suddivskoi etyky yak pidstava dlia prytiahnennia suddiv do dystsyplinarnoi vidpovidalnosti [Violation of judicial ethics rules as grounds for disciplinary liability of judges]. Retrieved from http://nbuv.gov.ua/j-pdf/cln_2014_2_10.pdf
16. Zaporozhets, I. H. (2012). Pravovi osnovy trudovoi diialnosti suddiv ta osoblyvosti yii vynyknennia [Legal foundations of judges’ labor activity and features of its emergence]. Aktualni problemy prava: teoriia i praktyka, 25, 121–128.
17. Vysnovok No. 18 (2015) Konsultatyvnoi rady yevropeiskykh suddiv (KRIES) [Opinion No. 18 (2015) of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE)]. Retrieved from https://court.gov.ua/userfiles/vusn_18_kr.pdf
18. Rezultaty druhoho zahalnoukrainskoho opytuvannia naselennia Ukrainy shchodo doviry do sudovoi vlady (2018) [Results of the second all-Ukrainian survey on trust in the judiciary]. USAID New Justice Program. Retrieved from https://newjustice.org.ua
19. Dovira do sudovoi vlady: rezultaty sotsiolohichnykh doslidzhen 2022-2023 [Trust in the judiciary: results of sociological studies 2022-2023]. (2023). Fond «Demokratychni initsiatyvy». Retrieved from https://dif.org.ua
20. Metodyka analizu diialnosti sudiv: zatverdzhena nakazom DSA Ukrainy vid 07.06.2018 No. 286 [Methodology for analyzing court activities]. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/v0286750-18#Text
21. Efektyvnist roboty sudiv u 2017 r. [Efficiency of courts in 2017]. Retrieved from https://dsa.court.gov.ua
22. Efektyvnist roboty sudiv u 2018 r. [Efficiency of courts in 2018]. Retrieved from https://dsa.court.gov.ua
23. Chycherska, M. I. (2016). Pravovyi status mistsevoho sudu ta yoho realizatsiia u funktsiiakh strukturnykh pidrozdiliv [Legal status of the local court and its implementation in the functions of structural units]. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia: Pravo, 40(2), 142–146.
24. Demianenko, I. V. (2016). Problemy navantazhennia na mistsevi zahalni sudy [Problems of workload on local general courts]. Pravo i suspilstvo, 1, 19–24.
25. Pro deiaki aspekty nezalezhnosti ta pidzvitnosti sudovoi hilky vlady: Postanova Plenumu Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 18.09.2020 No. 13 [On some aspects of independence and accountability of the judiciary: Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 18.09.2020 No. 13]. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0013780-20#Text
26. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 08.07.2020 u spravi No. 9901/251/19 [Decision of the Supreme Court of 08.07.2020 in case No. 9901/251/19]. Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/90458931
27. Rekomendatsiia No. (94) 12 Komitetu Ministriv Rady Yevropy [Recommendation No. (94) 12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe]. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_323#Text
28. Vysnovok No. 3 (2002) Konsultatyvnoi rady yevropeiskykh suddiv (KRIES) [Opinion No. 3 (2002) of the CCJE]. Retrieved from https://court.gov.ua
29. Maksymov, S. I. (2004). Pryntsypy lehitymatsii prava [Principles of legitimization of law]. Derzhavne budivnytstvo ta mistseve samovriaduvannia, 7, 3–13.
30. Tkachuk, O. (n.d.). Chy spravedlyvi ukrainski suddi? [Are Ukrainian judges fair?]. Retrieved from https://radako.com.ua
31. Komentari shchodo Banhalorovskykh pryntsypiv povedinky suddiv [Commentary on the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct]. Retrieved from http://rsu.gov.ua/uploads/article/komentari-bangalorski-9818bfbb11.pdf
32. Vysnovok No. 17 (2014) Konsultatyvnoi rady yevropeiskykh suddiv (KRIES) [Opinion No. 17 (2014) of the CCJE]. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/-17-2014-/1680792012
33. Yurevych, I. V. (2012). Orhanizatsiino-pravove zabezpechennia yednosti sudovoi vlady [Organizational and legal support for the unity of the judiciary]. Forum prava, 1, 1114–1119.
*© Гданський Н. М., 2024. Ця робота ліцензована за Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License*
