Trends and features of judicial practice research in Ukraine

: 104-110

Tarnavska M. "Trends and features of judicial practice research in Ukraine"

Lviv Polytechnic National University, Institute of Jurisprudence and Psychology

The article attempts to move from purely theoretical research on the role of judicial practice in Ukraine to more practical aspects of this issue. It is stated that, taking into account the provisions of procedural codes, legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, it is inevitable to live in the center of respect for scientists (it should be noted that legal practitioners began to study this area earlier and intensify it for scientists). It is emphasized that the array of court decisions, given the different legal significance of court decisions of different instances, is heterogeneous in terms of research. Thus, in comparison with the decisions of other courts, the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court are of special importance, as they are part of the mechanism for ensuring the unity of judicial practice. Interestingly, at the same time, they are able to radically change the peculiarities of the application of certain laws, even if their text has not changed since its adoption. As for the decisions of other courts, although they are not as important as the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, they are still of interest to scholars, as they are valuable empirical material. In particular, both in terms of law enforcement and in terms of legal sociology and anthropology. It is stated that such an array, in particular: 1) reflects a certain way of thinking, legal awareness of citizens of Ukraine and judges in particular; 2) demonstrates certain trends, negative or positive; 3) indicates the application or non-application of the case law of the ECtHR by domestic courts and the quality of such application. Emphasis is placed on the fact that as of today the Supreme Court has developed a new structure of its decisions, where the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the conclusion on the application of the rule of law are highlighted separately in the text; in case of discrepancy between the legal conclusions, the latest of them should be applied; the consequence of non-application of the conclusions of the Supreme Court is the cancellation of the decision. The analysis of court decisions for the application of ECtHR practice in them is mentioned separately. It was stated that over time, the number of court decisions of Ukrainian courts, which cite or mention certain decisions of the European Court, has increased. However, not all of them can be considered an example of quality and proper use of this tool.

1. Slotvinska N. D. (2017). Sudova praktyka yak dzherelo prava [Judicial practice as a source of law]. Doctor's thesis. Lviv [in Ukrainian]. 2. Mazur M. V. (2011). Sudova praktyka yak dzherelo prava: problema vyznachennia poniattia [Judicial practice as a source of law: the problem of defining the concept]. Forum prava. № 3. p. 493-497 [in Ukrainian]. 3. Kosovych V. M. (2016). Sudova praktyka yak zasib podolannia nedolikiv normatyvno-pravovykh aktiv Ukrainy. [Judicial practice as a means of overcoming the shortcomings of regulations of Ukraine]. Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia yurydychna. Vol. 62. P. 14-22. [in Ukrainian]. 4. Savchenko K. Yu. (2018). Yurydychna praktyka v umovakh reformuvannia sudovoi systemy v Ukraini. [Legal practice in the context of judicial reform in Ukraine]. Aktualni problemy vitchyznianoi yurysprudentsii. Vol. 1. P. 36-38. [in Ukrainian]. 5. Popov Yu. Yu. (2010). Pretsedentne pravo u konteksti zahalnooboviazkovosti sudovykh rishen ta ukrainski perspektyvy [Case law in the context of universality of court decisions and Ukrainian perspectives]. Forum prava. Vol. 3. P. 351-363. [in Ukrainian]. 6. Holovatyi V. (2017). Unifikatsiia sudovoi praktyky v Ukraini: teoretyko-prykladni pytannia [Unification of judicial practice in Ukraine: theoretical and applied issues]. Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo. Vol. 10. P. 237-241. [in Ukrainian]. 7. Hryniuk R. F., Savchenko K. Yu. (2019). Doktrynalni aspekty vdoskonalennia protsesu vyvchennia ta uzahalnennia sudovoi praktyky [Doctrinal aspects of improving the process of studying and generalizing judicial practice]. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia Pravo. Vol. 55. P. 15-18. [in Ukrainian]. 8. Drishliuk A. I. (2014). Do problemy vyznachennia poniattia sudovoi praktyky. [To the problem of defining the concept of judicial practice]. Naukovyi visnyk Khersonskoho derzhavnoho universytetu. Seriia Yurydychni nauky. Vol.4.Tom 2. P. 266-272. [in Ukrainian]. 9. Voitsekhovskyi M. (2019). Tendentsii sudovoi praktyky kriz pryzmu rishen Verkhovnoho Sudu [Trends in judicial practice through the prism of decisions of the Supreme Court]. Yurydychna hazeta. Vol. 1(655). P. 9, 14-15. [in Ukrainian]. 11. Didyk N. I., Besaha I. V. (2018). Pravovi vysnovky Verkhovnoho Sudu z pytan zastosuvannia norm administratyvnoho zakonodavstva [Legal opinions of the Supreme Court on the application of administrative law]. Naukovyi visnyk Lvivskoho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav. Seriia yurydychna. Vol. 2. P. 152-163. [in Ukrainian]. 11. Kibenko O. R. Novi pidkhody Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu do zabezpechennia yednosti sudovoi praktyky. [New approaches of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court to ensuring the unity of judicial practice]. Retrieved from: (accessed 01.09.2020) [in Ukrainian]. 12. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 30 sichnia 2019 r. u spravi №755/10947/17. [The decision of the Supreme Court of January 30, 2019 in the case №755/10947/17]. Retrieved from: (accessed 01.09.2020) [in Ukrainian]. 13. Pro sudoustrii i status suddiv (2016, June 2) [On the judiciary and the status of judges]. Retrieved from: (accessed 01.09.2020) [in Ukrainian]. 14. Stetsyk N. (2019). Pretsedentna sudova praktyka: analiz etapiv zaprovadzhennia ta rozvytku v Ukraini [Case law: analysis of stages of implementation and development in Ukraine]. Visnyk Lvivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia yurydychna.Vol. 68. P. 35-49. [in Ukrainian]. 15. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 4 veresnia 2018 r. u spravi № 823/2042/16 [The decision of the Supreme Court of September 4, 2018 in the case № 823/2042/16]. Retrieved from: (accessed 01.09.2020) [in Ukrainian]. 16. Okrema dumka suddi Sytnik O. u spravi u spravi №823/378/16 Provadzhennia № 11-374app18 [Dissenting opinion of Judge Sitnik O. in the case №823 / 378/16 Proceedings № 11-374ap18] Retrieved from: (accessed 01.09.2020) [in Ukrainian]. 17. Okrema dumka suddiv Bakulinoi S. V., Hudymy D. A., Danishevskoi V. I., Kibenko O. R., Rohach L. I., UrkevychaV. Iu. u spravi № 823/378/16 Provadzhennia № 11-374app18. [Dissenting opinion of judges Bakulina S. V., Hudymy D. A., Danishevska V. I., Kibenko O. R., Rogach L. I., Urkevich V. Yu. in the case № 823/378/16 Proceedings № 11-374ap18]. Retrieved from: (accessed 01.09.2020) [in Ukrainian]. 19. Ohliad praktyky zastosuvannia suddiamy Kasatsiinoho hospodarskoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu rishen Yevropeiskoho Sudu z prav liudyny pry pryiniatti postanov za 2018 rik [Review of the practice of application by judges of the Commercial Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in making decisions for 2018]. Retrieved from: (accessed 01.09.2020) [in Ukrainian]. 21. «Precedent UA 2017». Ukrainska Helsinska spilka z prav liudyny (2017). Kyiv: KVITs. 412 p. Retrieved from: (accessed 01.09.2020) [in Ukrainian]. 22. Ilina Cenevska (2016). A Thundering silence: Environmental Rights in the Dialogue between the EU Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. Journal of Environmental Law. Vol. 28. P. 301-324. 23. Uitspraak 20-12-2019. ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007. Hoge Raad. (English translation). URL: (accessed 01.09. 2020)