Визнання акта неконституційним та екстраординарність перегляду судового рішення: проблеми правозастосування

9. CJEU judgment of 8 April 1976, Defrenne, Case 43-75, EU:C:1976:56. uRl: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?isOldUri=true&uri=CELEX:61975CJ0043

10. Norkus R. Legal effects of judgments of the Court of justice of the European Union and national courts. Legal Consequences of Determining a Normative Act Unconstitutional for the Protection of Human Rights in Administrative Justice Process Collection of the Workshop Materials (Kyiv, 31 July 2020) / Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court. Kharkiv: Pravo, 2020. 146 p. P. 36. [ukr].

11. Terletskyi D. The effect of judgments passed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine over time: theoretical and practical aspects. Legal Consequences of Determining a Normative Act Unconstitutional for the Protection of Human Rights in Administrative Justice Process Collection of the Workshop Materials (Kyiv, 31 July 2020) / Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court. Kharkiv: Pravo, 2020. 146 p. P. 82. [ukr].

12. Norkus R. Legal effects of judgments... P. 39. [ukr].

13. Terletskyi D. The effect of judgments passed by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. P 82. [ukr].

14. Savchyn M. Legal effect of judgments of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and their implementation in administrative proceedings. Legal Consequences of Determining a Normative Act Unconstitutional for the Protection of Human Righ ts in Administrative Justice Proc essCollection of the Workshop Materials (Kyiv, 31 July 2020) / Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court. Kharkiv: Pravo, 2020. 146 p. P. 68-69. [ukr].

15. Blazhivskaa N. A constitutional complaint vs effective restoration of person's violated right by a final court judgment passed in the context of judicial review of administrative cases in exceptional circumstances. Legal Consequences of Determining a Normative Act Unconstitutional for the Protection of Human Rights in Administrative Justice Process Collection of the Workshop Materials (Kyiv, 31 July 2020) / Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court. Kharkiv: Pravo, 2020. 146 p. P 107. [ukr].

16. Bilak M. The Rule of Law as the determining criteria regarding the coming into effect of Constitutional Court decisions. Legal Consequences of Determining a Normative Act Unconstitutional for the Protection ofHuman Rights in Administrative Justice Process Collection of the Workshop Materials (Kyiv, 31 July 2020) / Administrative Court of Cassation within the Supreme Court. Kharkiv: Pravo, 2020. 146 p. P 73. [ukr].

17. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine № 3-рп/2015 from 08.04.2015. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v003p710-15#Text (date of application: 16.12.2020). [ukr].

18. Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine № 8-рп/2005 from 11.10.2005. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v008p710-05#Text (date of application: 16.12.2020. [ukr].

19. Amicus curiae brief for the Constitutional court of Georgia on the effects of constitutional court decisions on final judgments in civil and administrative cases. URL: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2018)012-e.

20. Case of Marckx v. Belgium, 13 June 1979, application № 6833/74. ECtHR. URL: http:// hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-57534 (date of application: 16.12.2020).

21. Case of Khristov v. Ukraine of 19 February 2009, application № 24465/04. ECtHR. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov. ua/laws/show/974_443#Text (date of application: 16.12.2020). [ukr].

22. Case ofRyabykh v. Russia, 24 July 2003, application № 52854/99. ECtHR. uRl: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/en- g?i=001-94131 (date of application: 16.12.2020).

23. Case of Sutyazhnik v. Russia, 23 July 2009, application № 8269/02. ECtHR. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-93775 (date of application: 16.12.2020).

24. Recommendation № R (2000) 2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe “On the retrial or reopening of proceedings in certain cases at national level following decisions of the European Court of Human Rights” 19.01.2000. URL: https://zakon. rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_175#Text (date of application: 16.12.2020). [ukr].

Referat

Onishchuk Mykola, Samofal Maryna. Declaring the act unconstitutional and extraordinary review of the court decision: problems of law enforcement

The article considers the problem of the balance between the principle of legal certainty and effective protection of individual rights in court cases, where the trial ended with a final court decision, in light of declaring laws and other acts unconstitutional. The issue of validity of decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in time is therefore discussed in the article.

The authors emphasize Supreme Court statement that the possibility to review a court decision in exceptional circumstances (if it is not executed only) is based on the principle of legal certainty, and the unconstitutionality of the law is important, first of all, as a general decision. It determines the legal position for resolving the following cases, and not as a basis for retrospective application of the new legal position and thus change the state of legal certainty already established by the final court decision.

The article points out that declaring the law unconstitutional indicates a mistake on the part of the state and undermines confidence in the court decision. The public interest in eliminating doubts about the legality and validity of a court decision prevails over the public interest, which is manifested in compliance with the principle of legal certainty.

It is underlined that the duty of the state is to ensure human rights and freedoms within the framework of the right to judicial protection and fair trial. The purpose of extraordinary procedures for reviewing a court decision is to restore violated constitutional rights and freedoms. Legal provisions on the possibility of reviewing not executed court decisions only, limit the guaranteed right to judicial protection and makes it impossible to implement the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.

Constitutional complaint is equated to a complaint against the state to the European Court of Human Rights (he ECtHR), as it concerns the application of an unconstitutional law by a court (state). Procedural Codes of Ukraine stipulate that if the ECtHR finds the violation of Ukraine's international obligations in resolving a case by a court, it is the ground for reviewing a court decision that has entered into force and is final. Therefore, the conclusion is made that the law is inconsecutive.

In the light of the principles ofthe rule of law and responsibility of the state before a person there is a need to change the legislative regulation on review of court decisions in connection with the constitutionality of a law, other legal act or their separate provision, applied (not applied) by the court in the case. It is offered to introduce the institute of circumstances of a substantial and compelling character that influenced the outcome of the case as the ground for reviewing a court decision in exceptional circumstances - declaring the act unconstitutional, to Ukrainian procedural codes.

Key words: the principle of legal certainty, restore of rights, review of judgement in exceptional circumstances, declaring the act unconstitutional.

Размещено на Allbest.ru