The article analyzes the place and role of the judge in the procedure of conciliation of the parties in the administrative proceedings of Ukraine and the EU Member States. It is established that in Ukraine there is a simple model of the subjective composition of conciliation of the parties in administrative proceedings, which is characterized by certain elements of a relatively complex model of the relevant subject composition (the judge encourages the parties to try to reconcile, but does not provide them with certain options to be considered).
It has been found that in some EU Member States, in which the judge previously took an active part in reconciling the parties to the public-legal dispute, due to a set of socio-legal and political problems (crises of democracy and public power; the urgent need to reform the subjects of public administration; the need to increase the availability of justice), judicial and legal reforms are currently being carried out, which «distance» judges from the relevant procedures, thus ensuring greater democratism of reconciliation and promoting real unloading of ships. France is an illustrative example of a country with reforms mentioned hereof.
It is established that today the judge in the reconciliation procedure appears as:
1) «relatively active conciliator»;
2) the subject of judicial control over compliance with the law in the reconciliation procedure;
3) legalizer of the conditions of reconciliation. This feature of the role of the judge in the conciliation of the parties to a public law dispute is derived from the power to exercise judicial control in conciliation. In practice, it is manifested in the fact that the conditions of conciliation of the parties to a public law dispute, which they set out in the statement of conciliation, acquire legal significance for them (create real legal obligations for the parties, which they must comply) only after the judge will approve them.
It is emphasized that the role of the judge in conciliation of the parties to the dispute in administrative proceedings is currently difficult to underestimate even in those EU member states where the judge is no longer obliged to perform a «conciliation mission» and therefore is not an «active conciliator». In Ukraine, the role of a judge in conciliation is manifested in his indifference to the parties to the dispute, whom he periodically calls to try to reconcile, as well as in monitoring the results of conciliation and their legalization when they meet the requirements of the CoAP of Ukraine.
1. On certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters : Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21.05.2008 № 2008/52/EC. Official Journal of the European Union. 2008. L 136. P. 3–8. [in English].
2. Protyvenʹ S. L. (2018). Prymyrennya storin proty vyrishennya spravy. Nova rolʹ sudu u vyrishenni konfliktiv.[Reconciliation of the parties against the decision of the case. The new role of the court in resolving conflicts]. Yuryst i pravo. № 3.URL: https://sk.ua/wp-content/uploads/sk_files/primirenie_storon_vs_razreshenie_dela._novaya_rol_suda_v_razreshenii_konfliktov.pdf. (accessed 09.05.2022) [in Russian].
3. Zheltobryukh I. L. (2019). Struktura protsesualʹnykh vzayemozvʺyazkiv, yaki zalezhatʹ mizh subʺyektamy y uchasnykamy administratyvnoho protsesu. [The structure of procedural relationships that depend on the subjects and participants in the administrative process]. Naukovyy visnyk Uzhhorodsʹkoho natsionalʹnoho universytetu. Seriya : Pravo. Vyp. 58, T. 2. S. 23–26. [in Ukrainian].
4. Kodeks administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrayiny (2005 July 06) № 2747-IV [Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine]. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2747-15#Text (accessed 09.05.2022).
5. Kucheruk N.S. (2019). Obmezhennya na prymyrennya.[Restrictions on reconciliation]. Zakon i biznes. № 35 (1437). S. 24.
6. Terneyre P., de Béchillon D. (2007). Le Conseil d’État, enfin juge! Pouvoirs. Vol. 123, № 4. P. 61–72. [in France].
7. Conciliation. Ministère de la Justice. URL: https://www.justice.fr/lexique/letter_c#Conciliation. (accessed 09.05.2022). [in France].
8. Buchser-Martin C., Manteaux B. (2018) Le guide de la conciliation devant le tribunal d’instance: Guide à l’usage des conciliateurs / 4e éd. Paris : Ministère de la Justice. 97 p. [in France].
9. Ley, reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-administrativa (1998 Julliet 13) № 29/1998 (última actualización publicada el 19.09.2020). Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. URL: https://www.boe.es/buscar/pdf/1998/BOE-A1998-16718-consolidado.pdf (accessed 09.05.2022). [in France].
10. Relative à l’organisation des juridictions et à la procédure civile, pénale et administrative : Loi № 95-125 du 08.02.1995 (version en vigueur au 01.01.2020). Légifrance. URL: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT 000024021430/ (accessed 09.05.2022). [in France].
11. Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung vom 21.01.1960 (zuletzt durch vom 03.12.2020). Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz. URL: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vwgo/BJNR000170960.html. (accessed 09.05.2022). [in German].
12. Zalyubovskaya I.K. (2004) Sudovyy kontrolʹ yak zasib zabezpechennya zakonnosti v sferi derzhavnoho upravlinnya: istoriya ta perspektyvy [Judicial control as a means of ensuring the rule of law in the field of public administration: history and prospects]. Aktualʹni problemy derzhavy i prava. № 22. S. 342–346. [in Ukrainian].
13. Dragos D. C., Marrani D. (2014) Administrative Appeals in Comparative European Administrative Law: What Effectiveness? Alternative Dispute Resolution in European Administrative Law. Heidelberg : Springer, P. 539–563. [in English].
14. Shylo S.M. (2015) Osoblyvosti sudovoho kontrolyu za diyalʹnistyu publichnoyi administratsiyi [Features of judicial control over the activities of public administration]. Prykarpat·sʹkyy yurydychnyy visnyk. Vyp. 3 (9), T. 3. S. 267–271. [in Ukrainian].
15. Alternativas para la solucion de conflictos que competen a la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa : Report of the Supreme Court of Spain, 2016. Association internationale des hautes juridictions administrative. URL: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/975178.pdf. (accessed 09.05.2022). [in Spain].
16. Constitución Española (última actualización publicada el 27.09.2011). Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. URL: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1978-31229.(accessed 09.05.2022). [in Spain].
17. Sentencia de Tribunal Constitucional de España, de 03.02.2000 № 31/2000. Tribunal Constitucional de España. URL: http://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/es-ES/Resolucion/Show/4015.(accessed 09.05.2022). [in Spain].
18. Sentencia de Tribunal Constitucional de España, de 08.10.2011 № 177/2011. Tribunal Constitucional de España. URL: http://hj.tribunalconstitucional.es/es-ES/Resolucion/Show/22623. (accessed 09.05.2022). [in Spain].