The research is devoted to the study of the European experience of hearing and resolving electoral disputes in the administrative justice system. The availability of a national system of effective consideration of disputes concerning legal relations related to the election or referendum process is one of the basic guarantees of free and fair elections. Ukraine is a state that is integrating into the European legal space, thus the European system of standards is of key importance. It is pointed out that the electoral law of most European countries provides for two ways of hearing electoral disputes: administrative and judicial. The administrative method of electoral dispute resolution provides for the possibility of itsconsideration by various bodies, depending on the elections concerning which dispute arises (parliamentary, provincial, municipal). The judicial procedure for consideration of electoral disputes in foreign countries also has a number of peculiarities. The author describes the experience of such countries as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and France. The advantages and disadvantages of administrative and judicial methods of electoral dispute resolution in European countries are analyzed. It is pointed out that despite the positions according to which preference is given to election commissions consisting of highly qualified specialists, the current state of affairs in Ukraine does not allow to remove election disputes from the jurisdiction of administrative courts. This requires that election commissions be composed of independent, impartial, professional members, and the practice of conducting elections in Ukraine shows quite opposite situation. Nevertheless, in general, the procedural legislation of Ukraine regulating the procedure and terms for appealing electoral violations and consideration of cases of this category by administrative courts in most aspects complies with established European standards.
1. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny u spravi “Namat Aliiev proty Azerbaidzhanu” [Case of Namat Aliyev v. Azerbaijan]. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ fre?i=001-98187 [in Ukrainian].
2. Luzhykova Ye. (2014). Znachennia instytutu mizhnarodnykh vyborchykh standartiv u demokratychnykh derzhavakh. [The importance of the institute of international election standards in democratic states]: Visnyk Kyivskoho Natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Derzhavne upravlinnia. Kyiv Vyp. 2., S. 61–64 [in Ukrainian].
3. Tseller. E. (2021). Yevropeiskyi dosvid ta praktyka Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny shchodo vyrishennia vyborchykh sporiv [European experience and practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the resolution of election disputes]. Zakhyst vyborchykh prav administratyvnymy sudamy v Ukraini: Zbirnyk tez dopovidei IV Mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii «Administratyvna yustytsiia v Ukraini: problemy teorii ta praktyky» (m. Kyiv, 1-2 lypnia 2021 roku). Kyiv: „Kompaniia «Vaite»”, S. 150-152 [in Ukrainian].
4. Zaika M., Yarmaki V. (2017). Osoblyvosti orhanizatsii systemy administratyvnoi yustytsii: zarubizhnyi dosvid[Peculiarities of the organization of the administrative justice system: foreign experience]. Pivdennoukrainskyi pravnychyi chasopys. № 3., S. 77-80 [in Ukrainian].
5. Broker L. (2021). Sudovyi zakhyst prava holosu ta pasyvnoho vyborchoho prava v Nimechchyni [Judicial protection of the right to vote and the passive right to vote in Germany]. Zakhyst vyborchykh prav administratyvnymy sudamy v Ukraini: Zbirnyk tez dopovidei IV Mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii «Administratyvna yustytsiia v Ukraini: problemy teorii ta praktyky» (m. Kyiv, 1-2 lypnia 2021 roku). Kyiv: „Kompaniia «Vaite»“, S. 94-96 [in Ukrainian].
6. Administratyvna yustytsiia: yevropeiskyi dosvid i propozytsii dlia Ukrainy [Administrative justice: European experience and proposals for Ukraine]. Avtory-uporiadnyky I.B. Koliushko, R.O. Kuibida. K.: Fakt, 2003. 146 s. [in Ukrainian].
7. Administratyvna yustytsiia Ukrainy: problemy teorii i praktyky [Administrative justice of Ukraine: problems of theory and practice]. Nastilna knyha suddi. Za zahalnoiu redaktsiieiu O.M. Paseniuka. K.: Istyna, 2007. 608 s. [in Ukrainian].
8. Novak O. Vyborchi systemy na mistsevykh vyborakh u Yevropi: dosvid rehionalnykh derzhav [Electoral systems in local elections in Europe: experience of regional states]. Publichne pravo. 2014. № 3. S. 23–29. [in Ukrainian].
9. Mialovytska N. A. Porivnialno-pravovyi analiz vyborchykh system krain Yevropy [Comparative legal analysis of electoral systems of European countries]. Porivnialne pravoznavstvo. Suchasnyi stan i perspektyvy rozvytku: zb. materialiv mizhnar. nauk. sympoziumu «Dni porivnialnoho pravoznavstva» (m. Kyiv, 8–11 kvit. 2009 r.). Kyiv, 2009. S. 308–311. [in Ukrainian].
10. Kodeks administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy [Code of Administrative Justice of Ukraine] vid 06.07.2005 r. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2747-15#n10686. [in Ukrainian].