НШСУ-en

FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DISCRETIONARY POWERS BY SUBJECTS OF POWER AND COURTS OF THE METHOD OF PROTECTION DURING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DISCRETIONARY POWERS BY SUBJECTS OF POWER AND COURTS OF THE METHOD OF PROTECTION DURING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

УДК 351.95                                                                                                                                                                                                  PDF

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2020-4(33)-5

 

OlenaGUBSKA

Judge, the Administrative Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court, coach of the National School of Judges of Ukraine, Doctor of Law, Associate Professor

 

FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DISCRETIONARY POWERS BY SUBJECTS OF POWER AND COURTS OF THE METHOD OF PROTECTION DURING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

This article aims to the study of discretionary powers of subjects of power and the courtof the method of protection during administrative proceedings. The article presents the concept of discretion, framework, the history of the emergence of the concept of discretionary powers and the consolidation of this concept not only in domestic legislation but also in international instrument.

The author claims that not all decision-making powers of the authorities are discretionary. Discretion is valid only when, within the framework of the law, a state body can independently (at its own discretion) choose one of several options for a specific legal decision. At the same time, the powers of state bodies are not discretionary, when there is only one lawful and legally justified variant of behavior of the subject of power.

It was noted that discretionary powers should be limited by the current legislations. Their unjustified expansion will contribute to illegal decisions, increase various negative phenomena, including abuse of power.

The article analyzes the numerical practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which enshrines the principle of prohibiting the intervention of the judiciary in the discretion of state authorities and substituting themselves for these bodies by making decisions on cases of legal entities or individuals. At the same time, it is emphasized that the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure does not contain clear provisions that should guide the courts in determining the limits of judicial discretion. However, the court must be guided by the rules of substantive and procedural law, the principle of the rule of law. On one side, the court cannot exceed the limits of its intervention, but on the other side, its intervention must be effective and sufficient to ensure the implementation of the tasks of administrative proceeding and review of decision, action or inaction of the subject of power in accordance with the criteria of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of Ukraine (section 2). Establishing the fact that the subject of power has the right to act in deciding at its discretion and compliance with the subject of the application of all the conditions prescribed by law to obtain a positive result affects the method chosen by court to protect individual rights.

Keywords: discretion, discretionary powers, limits of application, judicial control, exceeding of authority.

References

  1. 1.        Legal encyclopedia: in 6 volumes / editor: Yu. S. Shemshuchenko (chairman of the editor) and others.  Кyiv: Ukr. encyclical., 1998. Т. 2. 741 p. [ukr.]
  2. 2.        Grin A. A. Discretionary powers of the executive authorities of Ukraine and their implementation: Dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Law (Doctor of Philosophy) in the specialty 12.00.07 – Administrative law and process; finance law; information law / V. M. Koretsky Institute of State and Law of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv: 2019. [ukr.]
  3. 3.        Discretion. Russian-English dictionary / under common. led by A. I. Smirnitsky: URL: http://www.classes.ru/dictionary-russian-english-Smirnitsky-term-47953.htm (access date: 05.98.2017). [ukr.]
  4. 4.        Lagoda O. The main mistakes in the application of discretionary powers by officials of administrative bodies. Law of Ukraine. Legal journal. 2009. № 3. P. 86–89. [ukr.]
  5. 5.        On approval of the Methodology for conducting anti-corruption expertise. Order of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine of 23 June 2010. № 1380/5. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v1380323-10#Text[ukr.]
  6. 6.        Bevzenko V. M.,  Panova G. V.  The essence and grounds for the intervention of the administrative court in the discretion of the subject of public administration. Kyiv: Dakor, 2018. 232 p. [ukr.]
  7. 7.        Scientific opinion on the international discretion of the subject of power and judicial control over its implementation / Administrative Court of Cassation. Official website of the Supreme Court. 01.03.2018. URL: https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pro_sud/naukovi_visnovki/nauk_visnovok_01_03_2018 [ukr.]
  8. 8.        Edith Zeller, Roman Kuybida, Roman Melnyk. Discretion of administrative bodies and judicial control over its implementation: report (project) ..September, 2020. 54 p. Pravo-Justice.  URL: https://court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/new_folder_for_uploads/sud4857/zvit_dyskreciia.pdf. [ukr.]
  9. 9.        Kharenko O. V. Administrative discretion in the activities of public administration. Journal of Kyiv University of Law. 2018. № 3. P. 119–124. [ukr.]
  10. 10.    Administrative law of Ukraine. Academic course: textbook V. B. Averyanow (chairman) and others. Kyiv: Jurid. Opinion 2004. General part 584 p. p.[ukr.]
  11. 11.    The case of the European Court of Human Rights Volokhs v. Ukraine (№ 23543 / 02). URL: http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_138 [ukr.]
  12. 12.    Venislavsky F. Special-permitting principle in the constitutional and legal regulation. Magazine of the Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine. 2009. № 2. P. 57–67. [ukr.]
  13. 13.    Tsvirkun Y. I.  REGARDING THE INTERFERENCE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN THE JUDGMENT OF COLLEGIAL SUBJECTS OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION. Actual problems of the state and law: zb. Science. etc. Vip. 82 / editor: VV Zavalnyuk (editor in chief) and others. Odessa: Helvetika, 2019. P. 261–272 [ukr.]
  14. 14.    English justice system: Coll. dock. / prepared by Henry Brooke for seminars held for judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine on 9 and 11 February 2011. Lord Slynn European Law Foundation. 31 p.URL: https://slynn-foundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/The-English-system-of-justice-Ukrainian-judiciary-seminars-Ukrainian-version.pdf [ukr.]
  15. 15.    Goncharenko A. V. Judicial control over administrative bodies: foreign experience. URL: http://www.vru.gov.ua/Docs/a290909.pdf [ukr.]
  16. 16.   The United States of America. Constitution and legislation. Moscow: Progress.  1993.  P. 246–257. [russ.]
  17. 17.    Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2747-15#Text (appeal date: 24.02.2021) [ukr.]