WAYS OF IMPROVING THE INSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF JUDICIAL SUSTAINABILITY FOR STRENGTHENING THE STATE LEGAL ORDER
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66556/2522-4549.51.sopilnyk-l1Keywords:
judicial sustainability, institutional foundations, High Council of Justice, judicial governance model, financial autonomy, martial law, judicial reform, flexible sustainabilityAbstract
The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of ways to improve the institutional foundations of judicial sustainability for strengthening state legal order. The aim of the study is to substantiate an institutional framework capable of ensuring the functionality of the judicial system under both ordinary and extraordinary circumstances, including martial law. The research employs comparative legal methods, institutional analysis, and a systematic approach to studying models of judicial governance in Europe. Four basic types of judicial governance are examined: the judicial council model, the judicial service model, the ministry of justice model, and the hybrid model. The experience of court operations during martial law in Ukraine is analyzed, including changes in territorial jurisdiction for over 169 courts and the relocation of 468 judges. The institutional mechanism for judicial selection involving international experts is investigated. Based on the analysis, a concept of institutional improvement is proposed, built on three interconnected elements: differentiation between 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' modes of judicial system operation; creation of a coordination mechanism for sustainability issues under the High Council of Justice; and strengthening the financial autonomy of the judiciary through constitutional entrenchment of a minimum level of budgetary support. The scientific novelty lies in the substantiation of a 'flexible sustainability' model of judicial power, where the rigidity of the legal framework is combined with the plasticity of ethical and cultural infrastructure. The practical significance lies in the possibility of using the findings to formulate a strategy for reforming Ukraine's judicial system.References
1. Uhrynovska O., Vitskar A. Administration of Justice during Military Aggression against Ukraine: The 'Judicial Front'. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe. 2022. Vol. 5, No. 3(15). P. 194–202. DOI: 10.33327/AJEE-18–5.3-n000310.
2. Prytyka Yu., Izarova I., Maliarchuk L., Terekh O. Legal Challenges for Ukraine under Martial Law. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe. 2022. No. 4(16). DOI: 10.33327/AJEE-18–5.4-n000329.
3. Castillo-Ortiz P. J. Judicial Governance and Democracy in Europe. SpringerBriefs in Law. Cham : Springer, 2023. 113 p. DOI: 10.1007/978–3-031–20190–5.
4. Aarli R., Sanders A. Judicial Councils Everywhere? International Journal for Court Administration. 2023. Vol. 14, No. 2. Art. 3. P. 1–34. DOI: 10.36745/ijca.487.
5. Garoupa N., Ginsburg T. Guarding the Guardians: Judicial Councils and Judicial Independence. American Journal of Comparative Law. 2009. Vol. 57, No. 1. P. 103–134. DOI: 10.5131/ajcl.2008.0004.
6. Castillo-Ortiz P. J. The Politics of Implementation of the Judicial Council Model in Europe. European Political Science Review. 2019. Vol. 11, No. 4. P. 503–520. DOI: 10.1017/S1755773919000298.
7. CCJE. Opinion No. 24 (2021): Evolution of the Councils for the Judiciary. Strasbourg : Council of Europe, 2021.
8. ENCJ. Report on Independence, Accountability and Quality of the Judiciary 2022–2023. Ljubljana, 2023.
9. Venice Commission. Compilation of Venice Commission Opinions concerning Courts and Councils of Justice. CDL-PI(2023)020. Strasbourg, 2023.
10. Cheesman S. J., Badó A. Judicial Reforms and Challenges in Central and Eastern Europe. International Journal for Court Administration. 2023. Vol. 14, No. 2. Art. 5. DOI: 10.36745/ijca.532.
11. Hooper A., Hoppe T., Matos J. I. To Trust is to Choose: International Experts Vetting Candidates for Public Office. Verfassungsblog. 2021. DOI: 10.17176/20210423–165325–0.
12. Prytyka Yu., Zahrebelna B. Territorial Jurisdiction of Ukrainian Courts in the Conditions of Martial Law. International Journal for Court Administration. 2026. Vol. 16, No. 3. Art. 7. DOI: 10.36745/ijca.625.
13. Ovcharenko O. et al. The Judiciary in Ukraine and Challenges of Wartime. Israel Law Review. 2025. P. 1–27. DOI: 10.1017/S0021223725100046.
14. Ginsburg T., Versteeg M. The Bound Executive: Emergency Powers During the Pandemic. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2021. Vol. 19, No. 5. P. 1498–1535. DOI: 10.1093/icon/moab059.
15. CEPEJ. European Judicial Systems: CEPEJ Evaluation Report – 2022 Evaluation Cycle. Strasbourg : Council of Europe, 2022.
16. Expert-Foulquier C. The Financial Independence of the Judiciary in France. International Journal for Court Administration. 2020. Vol. 11, No. 1. Art. 6. DOI: 10.36745/ijca.300.
17. Viapiana F. Pressure on Judges: How the Budgeting System Can Impact on Judge's Autonomy. Laws. 2018. Vol. 7, No. 4. Art. 38. DOI: 10.3390/laws7040038.
18. Kondratova I., Korotenko T. Towards Modern Challenges in Financing the Judiciary. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe. 2020. No. 2/3(7). P. 134–147. DOI: 10.33327/AJEE-18–3.2–3-a000030.
19. Городовенко В. В. Інституційна незалежність судової гілки влади в Україні: конституційно-правовий аспект. Вісник Конституційного Суду України. 2021. № 1. С. 81–92.
20. Дрозд О. Ю., Сорока Л. Місце і роль апарату суду в організаційному забезпеченні діяльності суду. Науковий вісник МГУ. Серія: Юриспруденція. 2023. № 61. С. 126–129. DOI: 10.32841/2307–1745.2023.61.25.
21. Кучук А. М. Публічне адміністрування в системі судів України в умовах трансформації публічної влади. Проблеми сучасних трансформацій. 2025. № 17. DOI: 10.54929/2786–5746–2025–17–02–04.
