Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://dspace.nlu.edu.ua//jspui/handle/123456789/7548| Title: | Проблеми перегляду правових позицій Конституційним Судом України |
| Other Titles: | Проблемы пересмотра правовых позиций Конституционным Судом Украины The problems of the overruling its own precedents by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine |
| Authors: | Капліна, О.В. Євсєєв, О.П. |
| Keywords: | правові позиції Конституційний Суд України конституціоналізація кримінального процесу судовий прецедент динамічне корегування правових позицій правовые позиции Конституционный Суд Украины конституционализация уголовного процесса динамическая корректировка правовых позиций судебный прецедент stare decisis Constitutional Court of Ukraine Constitutiolization of criminal procedure overruling in precedent cases precedents |
| Issue Date: | 2013 |
| Citation: | Капліна О. В. Проблеми перегляду правових позицій Конституційним Судом України / О. В. Капліна, О. П. Євсєєв // Державне будівництво та місцеве самоврядування : зб. наук. пр. – Харків, 2013. – Вип. 26. – С. 33–46. |
| Abstract: | У статті розглядається одна із найбільш актуальних проблем сучасного конституційного судочинства, а саме: чи може Конституційний Суд України переглядати свої попередні правові позиції із певних категорій справ. Обґрунтовується теза про те, що така діяльність Суду повинна здійснюватись ним помірковано, лише за наявності переконливих підстав. Аналізується практика Конституційного Суду України у царині кримінального процесу. В статье рассматривается одна из актуальнейших проблем современного конституционного судопроизводства, а именно: вправе ли Конституционный Суд Украины пересматривать свои предыдущие правовые позиции по определенной категории дел. Обосновывается тезис о том, что подобного рода деятельность должна осуществляться Судом умеренно, иное противоречило бы принципу законных ожиданий субъектов правоотношений. Анализируется практика Конституционного Суда Украины, касающаяся уголовного судопроизводства. |
| Description: | In the United States and England the common law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction. The principle of stare decisis was not always applied with uniform strictness. For example in the practice of the modern constitutional courts they looked to earlier cases for guidance and sometimes they can reject those they considered bad. Constitutional Court of Ukraine also places less than complete reliance on prior decisions because there is really a lack of professional and objective decisions of cases. At the same time lawyers and judges finally have got direct access to cases and try more accurately interpret prior decisions. For stare decisis to be effective, each jurisdiction must have one highest court to declare what the law is in a precedent-setting case. The Ukrainian Constitutional Court serves as precedential body, resolving conflicting interpretations of law or dealing with issues of first impression. Whatever this court decides becomes judicial precedent. In Ukraine Constitutional Court seeks to follow precedent whenever possible, seeking to maintain stability and continuity in the law. Devotion to stare decisis is considered a mark of judicial restraint, limiting a judge’s ability to determine the outcome of a case in a way that he or she might choose if it were a matter of first impression. Take, for example, the precedent set in «Soldatov case», the 2000 decision that defined a human’s right to choose the advocate as a fundamental constitutional right. But the new Criminal procedural code of Ukraine, adopted in 2012, overruled this decision, having limited this right only by the help of professional barrister. So this article has focused on one aspect of legal reasoning and argument, that of the use of precedent. However, it must be conceded that stare decisis is only a part of the topic. There are substantive rules for the interpretation of statutes and there are special rules and considerations when the statute is a criminal procedural code. Important to know that there are unique considerations when principles of the law of equity, proportionality etc. are involved. Yet, while the multitude of these rules provides the Justices with a large variety of other tools and techniques for legal reasoning and legal argument, it also has to be conceded that stare decisis continues to play the pivotal role. Nevertheless, the principle of stare decisis has always been tempered with a conviction that prior decisions must comport with notions of good reason or they can be overruled by the same constitutional court. |
| URI: | https://dspace.nlu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/7548 |
| Appears in Collections: | Наукові статті кафедри кримінального процесу |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaplina_Yevsieiev_33.pdf | 176.79 kB | Adobe PDF |  View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.