ANALYSIS OF THE DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN CASES AGAINST UKRAINE REGARDING THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY

Abstract

The article analyzes the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – ECtHR) in cases against Ukraine related to the independence of the judiciary. Attention is focused on the fact that the ECtHR Decision has been promoting the harmonization of the national legal system with the legal system of the European Union (hereinafter – EU) for a long period of time, in particular, with the accession of Ukraine to the Council of Europe in 1995. The ECtHR has a special role as an institutional guarantor of the rule of law, which, among other things, shapes national law enforcement practice. Taking into account a number of scientific studies, it is noted that international legal standards are divided into: (1) international standards, which are contained in global documents; (2) regional, for example, European standards, which are enshrined in European international legal acts. In addition, in the field of justice, international standards in the scientific literature are classified into: 1) basic – universal international standards enshrined in the fundamental documents defining the standards of the rule of law; 2) special – industry international standards in the field of justice; 3) international standards embodied in the practice of international jurisdictional bodies. It was concluded that European fair trial standards are enshrined in a number of European international documents – international treaties, which, depending on their legal force, are binding for Ukraine or have a recommendatory nature. As for the decisions of the ECtHR, they also contain relevant international standards, but do not refer to basic or special ones, but to those embodied in the practice of international jurisdictional bodies. The content of the decisions of the ECtHR in such cases «Sovtransavto-Holding v. Ukraine», «Agrocomplex v. Ukraine», «Volkov v. Ukraine», «Denisov v. Ukraine», «Kulikov and others v. Ukraine», «Humenyuk and others v. Ukraine», «Ovcharenko and Kolos v. Ukraine», «Golovchuk v. Ukraine», etc. Attention was drawn to the violation of the norms of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter – Convention, ECHR), which were committed by Ukraine in these cases. At the same time, it is emphasized that the analysis of the above-mentioned Decisions of the ECtHR indicates that the guarantees of the independence of the judge, which are enshrined, in particular, in Article 48 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges», are often not ensured in practice, as well as the presence of systemic violations in Ukraine regarding the independence of the judiciary. At the same time, it was noted that domestic courts, when making decisions, more often apply the norms of the Convention and its protocols, as well as the legal positions of the ECtHR, which are set out in the analyzed Decisions and which guarantee the right to a fair trial (Article 6), the right to an effective means of legal protection (Article 13), the right to property protection (Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR). Based on the results of the presented study, it was concluded that the criteria that determine the independence of the court, which are set out in the decisions of the ECtHR, should be taken into account and taken literally by officials and bodies involved in the sphere of the judicial system and the formation of the judicial corps in Ukraine. It is also noted that ensuring the rule of law, a fair trial and compliance with basic human rights are integral components of political requirements for Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Ukraine must synchronize its legislation with the law of the European Union (Acquis communautaire) and for this, according to various analyzes, it is necessary to adopt about a thousand draft laws. However, in order to ensure this, Ukraine must continue reforms in the field of justice, taking into account the provisions of the ECHR and comparing it to the practice of the ECHR.