{"title":"LEGAL REGULATION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF JUDGES FOR MAKING AN UNJUST DECISION IN UKRAINE: CURRENT STATUS","authors":"N. Karpova, Grigoriy Zabarniy","doi":"10.30525/978-9934-26-077-3-35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Subject of study. The article is determined for studying such a question as the recognition by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine (unconstitutional). The suggested article includes investigating such a question as the defining and applying of the notions “wittingly unjust” and “injustice” in Ukrainian law, taking into account the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine № 7-p/2020 dated June 11, 2020. Methodology. In this study, the authors used the logical method, the method of semantic analysis, as well as the comparative law method. The purpose. The purpose of this article is analyzing the method and arguments for recognizing the unconstitutionality of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which have been used by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine № 7-p/2020 dated June 11, 2020, as well as delineation of the limits and grounds of criminal liability of judges for making unjust decisions after the abolition of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The authors consider the definition and application of the terms “wittingly unjust” and “injustice” in judicial practice in Ukraine. The authors consider the options for defining the terms “wittingly unjust” and “injustice”, which were developed by Ukrainian lawyers. The authors conclude that there is no generally accepted definition of the terms “wittingly unjust” and “injustice” both in Ukrainian judicial practice and in Ukrainian legal science. The authors come to the conclusion that the concept of “injustice” cannot be used in modern Ukrainian law enforcement practice because it is not defined. The authors analyze the procedure for instituting a criminal case against a judge for a wittingly unjust court decision and conclude that this procedure leads to delegating the function of a judge to assess a court decision to the prosecutor, which is prohibited by the Constitution of Ukraine. The author review the international standards of criminal liability of judges for the issuance of court decisions in comparison with the arguments of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to establish the unconstitutionality of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. From the above data, the authors concluded that the arguments of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to establish the unconstitutionality of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine duly justify the repeal of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The main attention is given to the assessment of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine № 7-p/2020 dated June 11, 2020 by the international legal institutions – the European Community and the United Nations. The authors used a logical method to analyze cases of Ukrainian judges making unjust court decisions and found signs of corruption offences or human rights violations in these cases. Сonclusion of the study. Therefore, the authors propose to proceed judges to criminal liability for the corruption offenses in cases where judges judge an unjust court decision. Value/originality. This study is an оriginal proposal to solve the current problem of regulating the criminal liability of judges for the issuance of an unjust court decision at present, after the repeal of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.","PeriodicalId":378664,"journal":{"name":"European vector of development of the modern scientific researches","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European vector of development of the modern scientific researches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30525/978-9934-26-077-3-35","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Subject of study. The article is determined for studying such a question as the recognition by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine as inconsistent with the Constitution of Ukraine (unconstitutional). The suggested article includes investigating such a question as the defining and applying of the notions “wittingly unjust” and “injustice” in Ukrainian law, taking into account the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine № 7-p/2020 dated June 11, 2020. Methodology. In this study, the authors used the logical method, the method of semantic analysis, as well as the comparative law method. The purpose. The purpose of this article is analyzing the method and arguments for recognizing the unconstitutionality of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which have been used by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine № 7-p/2020 dated June 11, 2020, as well as delineation of the limits and grounds of criminal liability of judges for making unjust decisions after the abolition of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The authors consider the definition and application of the terms “wittingly unjust” and “injustice” in judicial practice in Ukraine. The authors consider the options for defining the terms “wittingly unjust” and “injustice”, which were developed by Ukrainian lawyers. The authors conclude that there is no generally accepted definition of the terms “wittingly unjust” and “injustice” both in Ukrainian judicial practice and in Ukrainian legal science. The authors come to the conclusion that the concept of “injustice” cannot be used in modern Ukrainian law enforcement practice because it is not defined. The authors analyze the procedure for instituting a criminal case against a judge for a wittingly unjust court decision and conclude that this procedure leads to delegating the function of a judge to assess a court decision to the prosecutor, which is prohibited by the Constitution of Ukraine. The author review the international standards of criminal liability of judges for the issuance of court decisions in comparison with the arguments of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to establish the unconstitutionality of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. From the above data, the authors concluded that the arguments of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to establish the unconstitutionality of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine duly justify the repeal of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The main attention is given to the assessment of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine № 7-p/2020 dated June 11, 2020 by the international legal institutions – the European Community and the United Nations. The authors used a logical method to analyze cases of Ukrainian judges making unjust court decisions and found signs of corruption offences or human rights violations in these cases. Сonclusion of the study. Therefore, the authors propose to proceed judges to criminal liability for the corruption offenses in cases where judges judge an unjust court decision. Value/originality. This study is an оriginal proposal to solve the current problem of regulating the criminal liability of judges for the issuance of an unjust court decision at present, after the repeal of Article 375 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
研究主题。此条是为了研究乌克兰宪法法院承认《乌克兰刑法》第375条不符合乌克兰宪法(违宪)的问题而确定的。建议的文章包括考虑到2020年6月11日乌克兰宪法法院№7-p/2020的决定,调查乌克兰法律中“故意不公正”和“不公正”概念的定义和适用等问题。方法。在本研究中,作者运用了逻辑分析方法、语义分析方法以及比较法方法。的目的。本文的目的是分析的方法和参数识别的刑法第375条违反宪法乌克兰,乌克兰已被宪法法院在宪法法院的决定乌克兰№7 p / 2020年6月11日,2020年,以及界定刑事责任的限制和理由的法官不公正的决策后,乌克兰废除刑法第375条。作者审议了乌克兰司法实践中“故意不公正”和“不公正”两词的定义和适用。作者考虑了乌克兰律师提出的定义“故意不公正”和“不公正”两词的备选办法。作者的结论是,在乌克兰司法实践和乌克兰法学中都没有普遍接受的“故意不公正”和“不公正”的定义。作者得出的结论是,“不公正”的概念不能用于现代乌克兰执法实践,因为它没有定义。作者分析了就一项故意不公正的法院判决对法官提起刑事诉讼的程序,并得出结论认为,这一程序导致将法官评估法院判决的职能委托给检察官,这是乌克兰宪法所禁止的。作者审查了法官发布法院判决的刑事责任的国际标准,并与乌克兰宪法法院确立《乌克兰刑法》第375条违宪的论点进行了比较。根据上述资料,作者得出结论,乌克兰宪法法院确立《乌克兰刑法典》第375条违宪的论点正当地证明废除《乌克兰刑法典》第375条是正当的。主要关注的是国际法律机构-欧洲共同体和联合国对2020年6月11日乌克兰宪法法院第7-p/2020号决定的评估。作者使用逻辑方法分析了乌克兰法官作出不公正法院判决的案件,并在这些案件中发现了腐败犯罪或侵犯人权的迹象。Сonclusion的研究。因此,笔者建议在法官作出不公正判决的案件中,对法官的贪污罪追究刑事责任。价值/创意。这项研究是在乌克兰刑法第375条被废除后,为解决目前规范法官对不公正法院判决的刑事责任问题而提出的一项原创建议。