The Supreme Court of Ukraine is undergoing yet another major change in connection with the adoption of the new law on the judiciary. They relate to its structure, powers and formation of the judiciary.
Previously, the court carried out the tasks of the cassation instanceand represented the highest link in the judicial system of the country. Over time, the highest specialized courts were organized in the country: economic and administrative courts.
The Supreme Court of Ukraine had the right to review the decisions of these courts, this system was called a double cassation and provoked criticism.
This system operated until 2010, when a new law was adopted and the judicial system was rebuilt.
In 2010, it was decided to organize a new higher specialized court that would deal with criminal and civil cases. This was considered the completion of earlier reforms.
SSSU was engaged in:
The Supreme Court of Ukraine has only two tasks:
How did the court work in the first case? For example, the cassation instance in one case agrees that the issuance of a loan without a license makes this transaction void, and in another case does not agree.
The applicant lodges a complaint where he requests to canceldecision on their case and encloses copies of decisions on similar cases. The court, considering the complaint and the attached materials, could indicate what interpretation of the norm of the law is correct or give a new explanation.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on such disputes is considered mandatory for judges and authorities.
Results of work of the same plenums and generalizationsIn comparison with the above decisions, the practice had and only has a recommendation character. Thus, the country made a step to create a case law. Some lawyers found the innovation good, others - no.
The Supreme Court of Ukraine, in addition to maintaining its status as the highest authority, received all the powers of the WCCU and retained those that it had since 2010.
According to the law of 2016, he performs the following tasks:
Decision of the Supreme Court of Ukraine will now replaceacts of the highest specialized courts: economic and administrative. As soon as the necessary number of judges is collected, these institutions will cease to function.
Within the framework of the new court, there are:
What does the big house do?
What other cases are envisaged for the Supreme CourtUkraine? The law on the judicial system makes reference to other laws, which is quite clear. It is impossible in one law to prescribe all possible options, so that in the future it is possible to clarify the competence of the institution.
In a large chamber judges are elected from each court of cassation for 5 people, its composition includes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The court will fully begin to work under the new law as soon as its formation is completed from the number of acting higher courts and the current Supreme Court.
All the judges participate in the plenary session without exception. The competence includes:
With the adoption of a new law, plenums of the Supreme Courtin Ukraine are entirely related only to issues of an organizational nature, and the implementation of justice does not affect, as it was before with the adoption of thematic regulations on the application of legislation in practice.
Lawyers, working on cases, try to monitor the practice of applying legislation by courts, especially by the Supreme Court. And Ukraine is not an exception in this respect.
How is the practice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine being studied? It is enough to take several similar cases and identify the approaches that the court applied in their decision. Of course, each case has its own nuances. However, the study of practice makes it much easier to clarify the prospects for a particular category: how the law is understood, what evidence is sufficient, and what mistakes are made by the courts or lawyers.
Whatever the practice of the court, it has a colossal influence on the judges.
But one question remains open. Previously, only decisions on cases opened because of the unequal application of the norms of the law were binding. The decisions of the Plenums or the generalization of practice have always had a recommendatory character. Judges often use them to justify their decision, but also, and often ignore references to them in complaints and other documents of the applicants and parties.
It is not completely clear, but, judging by everything, in the future only the separate decisions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine will remain binding.
Supreme courts that serve as cassationinstances - the last link of the judicial system within the country. Their decisions are final and they can not be appealed, but international law provides a special mechanism that gives the chance to initiate a review of the case.
Last decades, citizens of European countries have the opportunity to apply to the ECHR.
Its task is to study the decisions of courts for theircompliance with the Convention on Human Rights, and not their revision. Judicial acts of the ECHR oblige the Supreme Court to review the case in the light of national legislation.
Supreme or Supreme Court of Ukraine independentlydecides who will lead it. All the judges are gathered, and a secret ballot is held. The judge, who receives a larger number of votes, becomes the chairman. Just choose the judge-secretary of the court or his separate chamber.
Similarly, the chairpersons and secretaries of the cassation courts who are part of the Supreme Court are elected.
In each court, as indicated above,Chambers, whose membership is based on the specialization of judges. Each chamber chooses a judge-secretary, who is responsible for solving organizational issues. Elections are held by secret ballot.
At the moment, the chairman of the Supreme Courtis Yaroslav Romanyuk. Due to the fact that some of the judges will be replaced, there is a high probability that he will leave his post. This also applies to the secretaries of the Chambers of Chambers, who lead them.
The electivity of court leaders is considered by judges to beguaranteeing the independence of the court from politicians and their short-term interests. Of course, it does not always work, but, nevertheless, it has a positive impact.
</ p>
