ELECTORAL DISPUTES IN THE LEGAL POSITIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

PDF

УДК 342.925:342.842

ORCID: 0000-0002-4161-8478

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2021-2(35)-7

Oksana Hnativ

Candidate of Law Sciences, Associate Professor

of the Department of Civil Law and Procedure

Ivan Franko National University of Lviv,

ELECTORAL DISPUTES IN THE LEGAL POSITIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The article is devoted to the study of the rulings of the Supreme Court in the field of suffrage protection. The author uses specific examples to illustrate the importance of jurisprudence for the effective protection of the said rights of all participants in the election process in Ukraine. The interpretation of legal regulations by the Supreme Court is designed to ensure the certainty of the legal regulation when applying it to resolve disputes in the court.

At the same time, the analysis of jurisprudence demonstrates the low level of legal culture in society, as well as the need for educational measures to ensure the exercise of suffrage and their protection. Particular emphasis has been placed on the universality of the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court. In particular, certain criteria of good governance can be applied when considering administrative cases related to the exercise of powers of state bodies and local self-government bodies, their officials, regardless of the category of cases. The conclusion regarding the conditions for declaring the inaction of the subjects of power illegal is similar. At the same time, the Supreme Court does not always achieve legal certainty in its rulings. An example is the case on the legal nature of the President’s of Ukraine poll, which does not specify the criteria for distinguishing covert agitation from the poll (exit poll).

The resolution of procedural issues related to the delimitation of jurisdiction, as well as the issues of consolidation and separation of claims has equal importance. The issue of election cases, including territorial ones, jurisdiction, needs to be resolved, given the reduced deadlines for applying for protection of suffrage. The unity of the practice of application of procedural regulations ensures the equality of participants in the administrative process before the procedural law and the court. The analysis of the case law of the Supreme Court shows its compliance with international standards, in particular, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Key words: suffrage, Supreme Court, right to defense, election case.

References

The Constitution of Ukraine of June 28, 1996. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v006p710-08#n54 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

On the judiciary and the status of judges: Law of Ukraine of June 2, 2016. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1402-19#Text (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Electoral Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine of December 19, 2019. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/396-20#Text (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of March 27, 2019. in case No 9901/952/18. URL: https://verdictum.ligazakon.net/document/81288681 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of August 14, 2019, in case No 9901/430/18. URL: https://verdictum.ligazakon.net/document/83642878 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Order of the Supreme Court of August 22, 2019, in case No 9901/430/18. URL: https://verdictum.ligazakon.net/document/83821060 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of March 27, 2019, in case No 9901/423/19. URL: https://verdictum.ligazakon.net/document/83642862 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in case Rysovskyy v. Ukraine (application no. 29979/04) of October 20, 2011. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_854#Text (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of August 15, 2019, in case No 9901/436/19. URL: https://verdictum.ligazakon.net/document/83692606 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of August 15, 2019, in case No 9901/437/19. URL: https://verdictum.ligazakon.net/document/83692852 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of April 1, 2020, in case No 815/1666/18. URL: https://verdictum.ligazakon.net/document/88952213 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of April 15, 2020, in case No 9901/553/19. URL: https://verdictum.ligazakon.net/document/89180569 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of January 20, 2021, in case No 490/2254/20. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/94362756 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of November 4, 2020, in case No 420/2651/20. URL: https://verdictum.ligazakon.net/document/93217972 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Civil Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine of January 16, 2003. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15#Text (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of January 7, 2021, in case No 9901/1/21. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/94062714 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of October 25, 2020, in case No 9901/324/20. URL: https://verdictum.ligazakon.net/document/92415623?utm_source=jurliga.ligazakon.net&utm_medium=news&utm_content=jl01&_ga=2.153718968.181314590.1618072845-452059477.1612706739 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Dissenting opinion of the judge of The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court D. Hudyma, in case No 9901/324/20. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/92415630 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Dissenting opinion of the judges of The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court V. Prorok, T. Antsupova, O. Kibenko, L. Loboyko, in case No 9901/324/20. https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/92415625 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]

Resolution of the Supreme Court of April 29, 2020, in case No 9901/510/19. URL: https://verdictum.ligazakon.net/document/89252050?q=%22%D0%A6%D0%92%D0%9A%22 (access date 11.04.2021) [ukr.]