УДК 340.132.626                                                                                                                                                                                                  PDF

ORCID: 0000-0002-9707-0106

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2020-3(32)-6

Anna BARIKOVA,

Chief Specialist of the Judicial Statistics Analysis Division of the Courts of Administrative Jurisdiction of Legal Administration (I) Department of Analytical and Legal Work of the Supreme Court, Doctor of Law

PREJUDICE IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

The paper addresses the issues of judicial discretion in the application of appropriate preliminary categories for the fair and impartial consideration and settlement of disputes.

The author focuses on the peculiarities of applying the prejudice to express contradictions and truth-falsehood, establishment of erroneousness and truth of assessment. The administrative court is to assess a prejudicial relationship between judicial decisions concerning an established legal fact or composition, the consequences or claims arising from the same legal relationship in the original proceedings. Such prejudice applies to the following cases: 1) emergence, change or termination of the main legal relationship in the primary process, affecting the use of prejudicial categories in derivative legal relations in the subsequent process; 2) emergence of a legal relationship not generated by the primary relationship, which contains interdependent substantive legal regulations; 3) recognition of a claim for a conviction due to confirmed preliminary categories by a primary court decision, etc.

Direction of assessing the circumstances of the case are dealt with in the paper to establish the facts by comparing the judge’s rules of law and conduct of the parties on the basis of operational rules of law, taking into account «legal issues» (in material/primary and procedural/secondary components). Under the influence of the nature of reasoning, such effective evaluation criteria are formulated as observance of the principles of confidence in law, justice, honesty and morality; standards of reasonableness, impartiality, good faith; political goals of ensuring the common good, security of the state, public interests. Within the procedural discretion when using the preliminary categories, the judge is to fully and impartially investigate the «question of fact» regarding the modelling of scenarios and empirical knowledge of the truth on the levels of probability, conviction, absolute certainty. This subject of evaluation is dependent on previous decisions in the direction of «definitive» interpretation in order to make an unambiguous decision.

The author adduces examples of legal positions of the Supreme Court and courts of previous instances on applying preliminary categories in administrative proceedings.

It has been identified that the possibility of preliminary categories non-application in case of motivated judge’s disagreement in the way of the «recall» within the subject of consideration of the factual circumstances of the case is to be provided. Deviation from prejudice might be justified if there is a need for a «live» transition of judicial practice to interpretation, filling gaps and open «legitimate» completion of the law. Relevant changes are to be implemented in a natural, gradual and coordinated manner.

Procedure for overcoming the legal force of the preliminary ruling of a court decision has been proposed. The universality of a court decision is conditional. The standard legitimate way to reject prejudice is to review court decisions. Such decisions might be reviewed for compliance with the law and validity in their adoption. Confirmation of a judicial error «cancels» the preliminary nature of such a decision. Moreover, if the draft decision contradicts the preliminary categories given in another court decision that has entered into force, it is necessary to review unacceptable legal facts and compositions. For example, these could be procedural abuses, artificial distortion (creation or forgery) of evidence, etc.

Keywords: discretion, judicial discretionary power, prejudice, falsity, truth, contradiction.

References

Mamontova O.M. (2016) Zmist ta sutnist zastosuvannia preiudytsii v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi [The content and essence of applying prejudice in administrative proceedings]. Scientific Bulletin of UzhNU, no. 41, vol. 4, pp. 222–227 (the Law series). [ukr.]

Kravchuk V.M. (2011) Naukovo-praktychnyi komentar do Kodeksu administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy [Scientific and practical commentary to the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine]. Kharkiv: Faktor, 800 p. [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court (2018) : in the case no. 711/7901/17 dated of June 19, 2018. Retrieved July 08, 2020 from: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/74820874. [ukr.]

Resolution of Dnipropetrovsk District Administrative Court (2014) : in the case no. 804/8435/13-а dated of July 10, 2014. Retrieved July 08, 2020 from: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/39737860. [ukr.]

 Resolution of the Supreme Court (2018) : in the case no. 489/6160/16-а dated of April 25, 2018. Retrieved July 08, 2020 from: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/73700383. [ukr.]

 Resolution of the Supreme Court (2018) : in the case no. 821/640/17 dated of June 18, 2018. Retrieved July 08, 2020 from: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/74768812. [ukr.]

 Resolution of the Supreme Court (2018) : in the case no. 462/875/17 dated of May 10, 2018. Retrieved July 08, 2020 from: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/73901753. [ukr.]

 Resolution of the Supreme Court (2018) : in the case no. 815/1879/16 dated of January 30, 2018. Retrieved July 08, 2020 from: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/71938889. [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court (2018) : in the case no. 757/6550/17-а dated of September 26, 2018. Retrieved July 08, 2020 from: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/76737603s. [ukr.]

Masiuk V.V. (2009) Rozsud sudu shchodo otsinky preiudytsialnykh obstavyn [Judgment of the court on evaluating preliminary circumstances]. Bulletin of Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs, iss. 46, pp. 212–218. [ukr.]

Liashenko R.D. (2012) Zahalna kharakterystyka ta vlastyvosti preiudytsii yak zasobu sudovoi arhumentatsii [General characteristics and properties of prejudice as a means of judicial argumentation]. Chronicles of Kyiv University of Law, no. 3, pp. 22–25. [ukr.]

Efferson C., Lalive R., Fehr E. (2008) The coevolution of cultural groups and ingroup favoritism. Sci, no. 321, pp. 1844–1849. [engl.]

Fiske S.T. (2000) Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the seam between the centuries: Evolution, culture, mind, and brain. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol, no. 30, pp. 299–322. [engl.]

Ewald W.B. (1996) From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1408 p. [engl.]

Willard D.E. (2001) Self-verifying axiom systems, the incompleteness theorem and related reflection principles. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 66, iss. 2, pp. 536–596. [engl.]

Tsyppelius, R. (2016) Metodyka pravozastosuvannia [Methods of Law Enforcement]. Kyiv: LLC “VO “Iustinian”, 192 p. [ukr.]

Barak, A. (1999) Sudejskoe usmotrenie [Judicial Discretion] / transl. from English. Moscow: Publishing house NORMA, 376 p. [russ.]

Trush M.I. (2017) Sudove rishennia v administratyvnomu protsesi [Judgment in administrative proceedings]. Ph.D. Lviv: Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, Ivan Franko Lviv National University, 219 p. [ukr.]

Mackevich P.N. (2017) Prejudicija v grazhdanskom i administrativnom sudoproizvodstve Rossii [Prejudice in the civil and administrative proceedings of Russia]. Ph.D. Moscow: Kutafin Moscow State Law University, 241 p. [russ.]