PDF 

УДК 347.92:347.7 (477)

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2022-3-4(40-41)-10

ORCID: 0000-0001-8755-7992

Bohdan ZADOROZHNYI,

Lawyer 

JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN UKRAINE

The article analyzes the competence of the court in the area of protection of freedom of entrepreneurial activity, which is formed from the system of procedural rules of administrative jurisdiction. It is determined that the rules of administrative proceedings have procedural advantages over other judicial jurisdictions, which strengthen the guarantees of the State's implementation of its constitutional obligations in the area of guarantees and protection of freedom of entrepreneurship in Ukraine. Thus, the principle of officialdom obliges the administrative court to be procedurally active, which is necessary to investigate all the factual circumstances of the court case on its own initiative. An administrative court may not refuse to accept a claim and resolve a court case regarding guarantees of freedom of entrepreneurial activity on the grounds of unclear, contradictory or absent legislation, the subject of legal regulation of which is the issue of economic (entrepreneurial) activity. It is stated that national courts, when resolving disputes in the area of ensuring freedom of entrepreneurial activity, have formed a number of legal positions, namely: a business entity is not obliged to provide a license to a regulatory authority if the economic activity it carries out is not subject to licensing; about the existence of discretionary powers of a public authority in the area of granting licenses for certain types of economic activity; ways to resolve the «hierarchical conflict of regulatory legal acts» regarding the conduct of economic activity. In the sphere of ensuring freedom of entrepreneurial activity, a number of problems have also been identified, which are specified in this publication, which requires systematic steps from the state to eliminate them.

Key words: freedom and guarantees of entrepreneurial activity, legal positions of the court, public law dispute, constitutional obligations of the state.

References

Zahalʹna teoriya prava: Pidruchnyk / Za zah. red. M. I. Kozyubry. Kyyiv: Vaite, 2015. 392 s. [ukr.].

Smokovych M. I. Yurysdyktsiya administratyvnykh sudiv: teoriya i praktyka sudochynstva: monohrafi ya. Kyyiv: Yurinkom Inter, 2022. 288 s. [ukr.].

Zahalʹnyy klasyfi kator spetsializatsiyi suddiv ta katehoriy sprav: nakaz Derzhavnoyi sudovoyi administratsiyi Ukrayiny vid 21 hrudnya 2018 r. № 622. URL: https://zakon. rada.gov.ua/rada/show/v0622750-18#Text [ukr.].

KAS Ukrayiny vid 6 lypnya 2005 r. № 2747-IV. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/ laws/show/2747-15#Text [ukr.].

Osnovy administratyvnoho sudochynstva ta administratyvnoho prava. Navch. posibnyk. Za zah. redaktsiyeyu Kuybidy R. O., Shyshkina V. I. Kyyiv: Staryy svit, 2006. 576 s. [ukr.].

Rishennya Konstytutsiynoho Sudu Ukrayiny vid 9 veresnya 2010 r. № 19-rp/2010. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v019p710-10#Text [ukr.].

Okrema dumka suddi Konstytutsiynoho Sudu Ukrayiny Markush M. A. do Rishennya Konstytutsiynoho Sudu Ukrayiny vid 16 chervnya 2011 roku, № 5-rp/2011 (punkt 1.2) // Ofi tsiynyy visnyk Ukrayiny. 2011. № 50. S. 9. St. 1990 [ukr.].

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 19 zhovtnya 2022 r. u spravi № 420/5/22 (administratyvne provadzhennya № K/990/20141/22), punkt 36. URL: https://reyestr. court.gov.ua/Review/106840444 [ukr.].

Bilak M. V. Doktryna norm pryamoyi diyi Konstytutsiyi Ukrayiny: pravozastosuvannya. URL: https://pravo.ua/doktryna-norm-priamoi-dii-konstytutsiiukrainy-pravozastosuvannia [ukr.].

Rybachuk A. I. Zastosuvannya norm Konstytutsiyi Ukrayiny yak norm pryamoyi diyi u protsesualʹniy protseduri roz·hlyadu sudovoyi spravy // Pidpryyemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo. 2021. № 5. S. 137–144 [ukr.].

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 11 bereznya 2021 r. u spravi № 640/23179/19 (administratyvne provadzhennya № K/9901/26528/20), punkt 64. URL: https://reyestr. court.gov.ua/Review/95439044 [ukr.].

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu 04 hrudnya 2019 r. u spravi № 917/1739/17. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/86310237 [ukr.].

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 23 lypnya 2019 r. u spravi № 826/5607/17. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/83356090 [ukr.].

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 18 travnya 2022 r. u spravi № 826/10228/17. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/104361008 [ukr.].

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 08 kvitnya 2020 r. u spravi № 826/25373/15, punkty 45, 47. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/88654597 [ukr.].

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 27 lyutoho 2019 r. u spravi № 826/5755/17, punkt 74. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/80167779 [ukr.].

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 18 bereznya 2021 r. u spravi № 822/1723/17. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/95653510 [ukr.].

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 15 veresnya 2020 r. u spravi № 305/987/16-a. URL: https://lpd.court.gov.ua/adjudication/3114 [ukr.].

Shaptala N. K., Zadorozhnya H. V. Konstytutsiyne pravo Ukrayiny: navch. posib. Zaporizhzhya: Dyke pole, 2012. 480 s. [ukr.].

Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 27 lyutoho 2019 r. u spravi № 826/5755/17. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/80167779 [ukr.]