Yearly journal of scientific articles “Pravova derzhava” Volume 31 (2020), 60-69 p.
Parkchomenko Natalia. Legal doctrine as a result of courts’ enforcement activity
The conceptual approaches to determine the essence and a concept of a legal doctrine as a source of law were found. The value of generally accepted principles of State’s and law development in the process of legislation activity and enforcement, including the interpretation rules of law, was highlighted.
Although, the legal doctrine could change in nature, that determines its essence, content and mission. So the purpose of this research, accordingly, is to figure out the essence and concept of legal doctrine that is emerging in a result of the consolidation of courts’ enforcement and law interpretation practice.
On the one hand, law enforcement and law interpretation by judicial authority must be based on the achievements in the legal science. On the other hand, it serves as a court-made doctrine. It creates the conceptual approaches to overcome gaps in a law and to improve a law enforcement. It influence on the development of legal system and system of law.
It was concluded that judicial doctrine is formed by a formulation of typical approaches, established to solving specific cases. Introduction to the Ukrainian legislation such notions as “exemplary case” and “standard case”. This above mentioned is an important step to the increasing importance of judicial doctrine and recognition of its role as a source of law in Ukraine. Thus the perception of law, judicial practice, judicial legislation in society is changing. Also, in our review, the legal construction of the definition of The Supreme Court’s conclusions legal effect requires the enhancement. That is due to their binding nature, as enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine. Only on that condition, the increasing of effectiveness of judicial enforcement and perception of judicial doctrine as a source of law may be expected.
Key words: doctrine, court-made doctrine, precedent, concept, Supreme Court, court order, exemplary case, standard case.
References
1. Tsyt. Za : Semenikhin I. V. Pravova doktryna : zahalnoteoretychnyi analiz / nauk. red. O. V. Petryshyn. Kharkiv : Yurait, 2012. S. 30. 2. Tam samo. 3. Tam samo. S. 17–18. 4. Tam samo. S. 28, 72. 5. Syrykh V. M. Teoryia hosudarstva y prava : uchebnyk. Moscow : Yustytsynform, 2006. S. 288. 6. Prydvorov N. A., Puzykov R. V. Yurydycheskaia doktryna kak ystochnyk prava Rossyy: poniatye, sushchnost, metodolohycheskye aspekty. Teoretyko-metodolohycheskye problemû prava / pod red. M. N. Marchenko. Moscow : Zertsalo-M, 2007. Vyp. 2. S. 213–235; Vasylev A. A. Pravovaia doktryna kak ystochny prava: voprosû teoryy y ystoryy. Moscow : Yurlytynform, 2009. 268 s. 7. Kretova I. Yu. Tlumachennia prava: doktryny, rozvynuti yevropeiskym sudom z prav liudyny : avtoref. dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk : 12.00.01 – teoriia ta istoriia derzhavy i prava; istoriia politychnykh i pravovykh uchen. S. 12. URL : http://nauka.nlu.edu.ua/download/diss/Kretova/d_Kretova.pdf 8. Spasybo-Fatieieva I. V. Doktrynalne tlumachennia. Visn. Akad. prav. nauk Ukrainy. 2005. ¹ 1 (40). S. 15–16. 9. Liulkovych, S. N. Sootnoshenye doktrynû s pravovûm pretsedentom. Pravovaia systema Respublyky Belarus: sostoianye, problemû y perspektyvû razvytyia : materyaly X mezhvuz. nauch. konf. studentov, mahystrantov y aspyrantov (Hrodno, 9 apr. 2010 h.). Hrodno : HrHU, 2010. S. 231. 10. Stepanov D. Y. Voprosy metodolohyy tsyvylystycheskoi doktryny. Akt. probl. hrazhd. prava. 2003. Vyp. 6. S. 18. 11. Forsiuk Vita. Sudovi doktryny yak zasib protydii zlovzhyvanniu pravom u podatkovykh pravovidnosynakh. URL : http://advisortax.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Vita-Forsyuk.pdf 12. Zastosuvannia praktyky Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi : naukovo-metodychnyi posibnyk dlia suddiv. URL : https://www.osce.org/uk/ukraine/232691?download=true 13. Onishchuk M. V. Yednist sudovoi praktyky yak konstytutsiinyi imperatyv ta harantiia verkhovenstva prava. URL : http://nsj.gov.ua/files 14. Zrazkovi ta typovi spravy v adminsudochynstvi. URL : https://protocol.ua/ua/zrazkovi_ta_tipovi_spravi_v_adminsudochinstvi/ 15. Onishchuk M. V. Yednist sudovoi praktyky yak konstytutsiinyi imperatyv ta harantiia verkhovenstva prava. URL : http://nsj.gov.ua/files 16. Hetmantsev D., Blazhivska N. Sudovi doktryny, shcho potrebuiut perehliadu Z ADMINISTRATYVNO-protsesualnoho pohliadu. Pravo Ukrainy. 2018. ¹ 2. S. 92. 17. Tam samo. S. 87. 18. Tam samo. S. 89–90. 19. Tam samo. S. 89.
<< Íàçàä
