УДК 342.7                                                                                                                                                                         PDF

ORCID: 0000-0002-0588-0540

ORCID: 0000-0002-9551-1203

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2020-2(31)-1

Mykola ONISHCHUK,

The Rector of the National School of Judges of Ukraine, Doctor of Juridicial Science, honored lawer of Ukraine

Mykhailo SAVCHYN,

Director of the Institute of Comparative Public Law and International Law of Uzhgorod National University, Doctor of Law Sciences, Professor

DIRECT EFFECT OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ITS PROVISIONS IN ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE

The problem of direct effect of the Constitution is related to the some aspects of the systematics of sources of law in the legal system of Ukraine in the pint of view of comparative law. Today, the processes of convergence in law continue. In the light of such dynamics, there is a multilevel and pluralistic picture of the direct effect of the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine as a component of its highest legal force. The resolution of human rights cases by courts is a complex case, as it refers to their excessive restriction by law, which is not based on a sufficient legal basis. Constitutional justice is relevant to the practice of courts of general jurisdiction, as it is often in acts of constitutional justice that the provisions of the constitution are interpreted.

The article is the disclosure of the direct action of the Constitution Ukraine in the exercise of administrative justice through the implementation of its provisions in court decisions. The highest legal force of the Constitution is revealed through the lens of the components of the reasoning of court decisions. Direct action has been analyzed as a component of the normative nature of the Constitution, in particular because of the duty to protect of human rights and apply the principles of proportionality, as well as the correlation between the legal force of the Constitution and the acts of the Constitutional Court. The implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court in the activity of administrative courts, in particular through the system of reasoning of their decisions, is revealed. Based on a holistic understanding of the Constitution, it is concluded that the duty to protect the state arises from the violation of its human (i.e. body) human right by the agent and the main duty of the court is to restore such right in full.

Key words: decisions of constitutional justice, direct effect of the constitution, human rights, legal reasoning, review of judicial decisions, supremacy of the constitution.

References

The Constitution of Ukraine (as amended on 02.06.2016). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text [ukr.]

Jaqueline R. Kanovitz. Constitutional Law. 12th ed. LexisNexis 2010.[engl.]

Alexy Robert. Balancing, constitutional review, and representation. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2005. No. 3.[engl.]

Giovanni Sartori. Constitutionalism: A Preliminary Discussion. The American Political Science Review. 1962, vol. 4 (56). P. 853–864. [engl.]

Duverger, M. The Republic of Cytology. Paris: Ramsay, 1982. [engl.]

Mark Tushnet. Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Rights. Princeton University Press, 2008. [engl.]

Campo V.M., Savchin M.V. Legitimacy of decisions of constitutional courts of Ukraine and foreign courts in the context of the doctrine of the rule of law: praxeological and comparative aspect. Bulletin of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. 2010. No 5. S. 99–109.[ukr.]

Donald E. Bello Hutt. Against judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation. Revus [Online], 31 | 2017, Online since 01 June 2019, connection on 01 June 2019. URL: http: // journals.openedition.org/revus/3659[engl.]

Zhalimas Dainius. Official constitutional doctrine: concept, significance, main principles of development. Criticism. 2017, January. URL: https://krytyka.com/ua/articles/ofitsiyna-konstytutsiyna-doktryna-kontseptsiya-znachushchist-holovni-pryntsypy-rozvytku[ukr.]

Rechytsa Vsevolod. Can there be an official constitutional doctrine in Ukraine? Bulletin of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. 2017. No 3. S. 72–80.[ukr.]

Erwin Chemerinsky. In Defense of Judicial Supremacy, 58 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2017. No. 58. P. 1465 URL: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol58/iss5/3[engl.]

Birmontene T., Yarashunas E., Spruognis E. General Report of the XIV Congress of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts. Constitutional justice. 2008. No 2 (40) -3 (41). C. 70–240. [engl.]

Kahn, Paul W. The Court, The Community and the Judicial Balance: The Jurisprudence of Justice Powell. Yale L.J. 1987. Vol. 97. [engl.]

Waldron, Jeremy. Fake Incommensurability: A Response to Professor Schauer. Hastings L.J. 1994. Vol. 45. [engl.]

Sadurski Wojciech (ed.). Rights before Courts. A Study of Constitutional Courts in Postcommunist States in Central and Eastern Europe. Springer Publishing, 2005. [engl.]

Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No 8-rp / 2005. URL: http://www.ccu.gov.ua/docs/519[ukr.]

Rabinovych P.M. Human and civil rights in the Constitution of Ukraine (to the interpretation of the original constitutional provisions). Kharkiv: Pravo, 1997. 63 p.[ukr.]

Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine No 5-r / 2018. URL: http://www.ccu.gov.ua/docs/2224[ukr.]

R v Secretagy of State or the Home Department, Ex Parte Bugdaycay [1987] p. 514, 531. [engl.]

Alex Gewanter. Has Judicial Review on Substantive Grounds Evolved from Wednesbury towards Proportionality. Exeter L Rev 2017. Vol. 63. [engl.]

Donald E. Bello Hutt. Against judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation. Revus. 2017. Vol. 31. [engl.]

Mikhail Savchin. Comparative constitutional law: textbook. manual Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter, 2019. 328 p.[ukr.]

Alexander M. Bickel. The Least Dangeroud Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1962. [engl.]

548 U.S. 399 (2006), (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). [engl.]

Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany of 26 February 2014 on the abolition of the 3% barrier in the elections to the European Parliament. Digest of public law. 2014. No 3. URL: https://dpp.mpil.de/03_2014/03_2014_285_324.pdf [deu.]

Michael Taggart. Proportionality, Deference, Wednesbury. New Zealand Law Review. 2008. No 1–4. [engl.]

Tsakyrakis, Stavros. Proportionality: An assault on human rights? I • CON 2009. No 7 (3). R. 468–493. [engl.]

Savchin M. The main constitutional criteria for restricting human rights and fundamental freedoms. Elections and democracy. 2008. No 2. S. 21–28.[ukr.]

R v Secretagy of Statefor Defense, exparte Smith and Grady [1996] QB 517, 547. [engl.]

Lord Steyn. Democracy Through Law. EHRLR (2002) 723, 729. [engl.]

Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [1999] UKHL 42; [2001] 1 AC 27. [engl.]

Donnelly Jack. Human rights in international politics. Lviv: Kalvariia, 2004. 280 p.[ukr.]

Dworkin Ronald. About rights seriously. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2004. 392 p.[russ.]

Lothar Michael, Martin Morlock. Basic rights. 6. Installation. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2017. [engl.]

Unified state register of court decisions. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/88739736?[ukr.]

Savchin Mikhail. Human rights in the light of constitutional reform. Ukrainian Journal of International Law. Special issue: International law and the Constitution of Ukraine. 2015. S. 67–79.[ukr.