The article analyzes the multiplicity of approaches to understanding the concept of "justice" from the theoretical and legal, philosophical and legal and sociological and legal points of view. It is noted that justice and the judiciary are not identical categories, as justice is a broader concept than the judiciary and includes the latter. At the same time, the judiciary does not always guarantee a judicial decision. Therefore, the concepts of justice and justice are not identical, because not every court decision is fair. It is stated that the ultimate goal of justice is to restore justice, which, although a subjective category, must still meet the requirements of reasonableness and honesty. Judicial proceedings should be understood as the activity of the court in general, while justice is the implementation of judicial activity to achieve a specific goal, namely: the restoration of justice, protection of rights and freedoms, conflict resolution, and so on. Some scholars point out that justice is only a stage in the administration of justice. The multiplicity of approaches of scientists indicates an ambiguous interpretation of justice, which necessitates further study of its nature and essence. The ability of the judiciary to fully perform its functions in providing justice depends on its ability to influence the work of the executive and legislative branches of government. It is noted that the root cause of procedural legal relations is social conflict. In the process of litigation, such a conflict acquires legal form, but does not lose its social color. Thus, the conflict that is the subject of litigation is characterized by a dual nature: social, and at the same time legal. The socio-normative nature is also characteristic of the participants in judicial relations: on the one hand, they are characterized by a specific procedural status, on the other - social. It is determined that during the procedural activity the court carries out a casual or normative interpretation of the norms of law. The features of judicial interpretation are highlighted, such as its implementation by a certain subject, intellectual and volitional component, implementation of interpretation directly during the resolution of the case on the merits.
1. Avdeyenko N.I. (1969). Mekhanizm i predely reguliruyushchego vozdeystviya grazhdanskogo protsessual'nogo prava [The Mechanism and Limits of the Regulatory Impact of Civil Procedural Law]. L.: Izd-vo Leningr. Un-ta. 72 p. 2. Alekseyev S.S. (1982). Obshchaya teoriya prava [General Theory of Law]: v 2-kh t. M.: Yurid. lit.. T.ÍÍ. 360 p. 3. Bihun V. (2009). Filosofsʹko-pravove osmyslennya pravosuddya (shchodo rozmezhuvannya ponyatʹ “sudochynstvo” i “pravosuddya”) [Philosophical and Legal Understanding of Justice (on the Distinction Between the Concepts of "Justice" and " Judicial Activity"). Visnyk Lʹvivsʹkoho universytetu. Seriya yuryd. Vyp.48. Pp.21-27. 4. Vodnik V.D. (2010). Sotsiolohichni aspekty doslidzhennya sudovoyi diyalʹnosti v umovakh sudovoyi reformy v Ukrayini [Sociological Aspects of the Study of Judicial Activity in the Context of Judicial Reform in Ukraine]. Visnyk Natsionalʹnoyi yurydychnoyi akademiyi Ukrayiny imeni Yaroslava Mudroho. №6. Pp.237-246. 5. Voskobitova L.A. (2004). Mekhanizm realizatsii sudebnoy vlasti posredstvom ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [The Mechanism of the Implementation of the Judiciary Through Criminal Proceedings]: avtoref. dis. na soisk. uchen. step. d-ra yurid. nauk. M. 56 p. 6. Gromoshina N.A. (2004). Uproshcheniya protsessa: vse li sdelano pravil'no? [Simplifying the Process: Is Everything Done Right? ]. Nauchnyye trudi MGYUA. LEX RUSSICA. №1. P.181-186. 7. Husarov K.V. (2010). Perehlyad sudovykh rishenʹ v apelyatsiynomu ta kasatsiynomu poryadkakh [Review of Court Decisions in the Appellate and Cassation Procedures]: a monograph. H .: Right.. 352 p. 8. Zagaynova S.K. (2007). Sudebnyye akty v grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom protsesse [Judicial Acts in Civil and Arbitration Proceedings]. M .: Walters Kluver. 400 p. 9. Konstytutsiya Ukrayiny [The Constitution of Ukraine] vid 28.06.1996 № 254k-96 VR. Rezhym dostupu: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text. 10. Lutsʹkyy I.M. (2005). Spravedlyvistʹ yak filosofsʹko-pravova zasada ukrayinsʹkoho derzhavotvorennya [Justice as a Philosophical and Legal Basis of Ukrainian Statehood]: Avtoref. dys…kand. yuryd. nauk. Natsionalʹna akademiya vnutrishnikh sprav Ukrayiny. K. 17 p. 11. Navrotsʹkyy V.O. (1997). Zlochyny Proty pravosuddya [Crimes Against Justice]: Lektsiyi dlya studentiv yurydychnykh fakulʹtetiv. Lʹvivsʹkyy derzhavnyy universytet im. I.Franka. Yurydychnyy fakulʹtet. Lʹviv. 48 p. 12. Paleshnyk S.I. (2014). Sudove tlumachennya norm prava [Judicial Interpretation of the Law]. Naukovyy visnyk Uzhhorodsʹkoho natsionalʹnoho universytetu. Seriya pravo. Vypusk 28. Tom 1. Pp.34-37. 13. Pigolkin A.S. (1962). Tolkovaniye normativnykh aktov v SSSR [13. Pigolkin A.S. Interpretation of Normative Acts in the USSR]. M.: Gosyurizdat. 166 p. 14. Sirenko V. (2010). Deyaki problemy reformuvannya sudovoyi vlady v Ukrayini [Some Problems of Reforming the Judiciary in Ukraine]. Pravo Ukrayiny. №5. Pp.4-13. 15. Yurydychna entsyklopediya [Legal Encyclopedia]: v 6 t. Redkol.: YU.S. Shemshuchenko (holova redkol.) ta in. (1998). K.: “Ukr. entsykl.”. 736 p.