Yearly journal of scientific articles “Pravova derzhava” Volume 32 (2021),
48-57p.
Parkhomenko Natalia. Judicial doctrine in the legal system of the world
Special characteristics of the perception of judicial doctrine in the countries of common and continental law, in the European community in terms of the harmonisation and strengthening the influence of the European Court of Human Rights on the juridical regulation, are defined. Special attention is paid to the identification of the essence and content oh judicial doctrine of the ECHR and its importance in the regulation of social relations.
Generally accepted approach in the countries of continental law is the one under which the judicial practice and doctrine, as a result of compilation of jurisprudence, is not the source of law in formal-legal perception, but it is an important factor of the law-making. In the countries of common law, the legal doctrine has been developing by scaling up the experience of court’s decisions and the perception of the decisions of the judicial authorities as a source of law. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights as a part of European legal system plays the harmonisation role.
The judicial doctrine of European Court of Human Rights is one of the sources of law for the counties of the European Area and countries, that adhered to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, strengthened its grip since the end of the twentieth century and in the twenty-first century, especially, it increased the influence on the regulation of the international relations and the domestic relations as well. Such doctrine became a part of their national legislature.
The above mentioned is confirmed by legal force and by place in national legal systems of judicial doctrine of European Court of Human Rights, containing general principles or framework for the protection of human rights and freedoms. That’s why its perception is performed as a general rule , source of law, but not the judgment in a particular case, which is not relevant to the hearing of other cases. For this, important is constitutional endorsement of ECHR’s decisions in the hierarchy of legal acts, or sources of law in formal-legal perception.
For this moment, there had been a convergence of conceptual approaches to understanding the legal doctrine in general and judicial doctrine in particular. There is a fundamental importance of the judicial doctrine, which is a precondition and a source for the law-making, law enforcement, and also it could act as a direct source of law in formal-legal perception.
Key words: judicial doctrine, legal system, continental law, common law, European legal system, European Court of Human Rights.
References
1. SW proty Spoluchenoho Korolivstva (SW v. The United Kingdom): Postanova Yevropeiskoho Sudu z prav liudyny vid 22 lystopada 1995 (skarha ¹ 20166/92) (vytiah), URL : https://europeancourt.ru/resheniya-evropejskogo-suda-na-russkom-yazyke/s-w-protiv-soedinennogo-korolevstva-postanovlenie-evropejskogo-suda/ [ukr]. 2. Emerson H. Tiller, Frank B. Cross What is Legal Doctrine? SSRN Electronic Journal 100·May 2005. URL : file:///C:/Users/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C/Downloads/SSRN-id730284.pdf 3. Heorhiievskyi Yu.V. Polityka «spravedlyvoho prava» u sudovii praktytsi. Pravo u suchasnomu politychnomu zhytti Ukrainy: nauk. vyd. / ker. avt. kol. A.O. Selivanov. Kyiv : Lohos, 2020. S. 133. [ukr]. 4. Mahrelo M. Pretsedent, yakyi ne zobov’iazuie: deiaki aspekty sutnosti rishen' Yevropeis'koho sudu z prav liudyny v pravovii systemi kontynental'noho prava. Visnyk Akademii advokatury Ukrainy. 2013. Chyslo 3 (28). S. 62. [ukr]. 5. Emerson H. Tiller, Frank B. Cross What is Legal Doctrine? SSRN Electronic Journal 100·May 2005. URL : file:///C:/Users/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C/Downloads/SSRN-id730284.pdf 6. Edward Rubin, Malcolm Feeley, Creating Legal Doctrine. P. 2036–2037. URL : https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3067&context=facpubs 7. Tam samo. 8. Tonkov E.N. Tolkovanye zakona v Anhlyy: monohrafiia. Sankt-Peterburh, 2013. S. 16. 9. Emerson H. Tiller, Frank B. Cross, What is Legal Doctrine? SSRN Electronic Journal 100·May 2005. URL : file:///C:/Users/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C/Downloads/SSRN-id730284.pdf 10. Tam samo. 11. Mysarevych N.V. Evropeiskoe pravo v sovremennoi pravovoi systeme y eho vlyianye na razvytye prava Respublyky Belarus'. URL : https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/290238395.pdf [ukr]. 12. Statut Rady Yevropy London, 5 travnia 1949 r. URL : https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_001#Text [ukr]. 13. Trykhlib K.O. Doktryna «mezh vil'noho rozsudu» u praktytsi Yevropeis'koho sudu z prav liudyny. Pravna veda a prax: vyzvy modernych europskych integracnych procesov. 27–28 novembra, 2015. URL : http://dspace.nlu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/13420/1/Trykhlib_65-68.pdf [ukr]. 14. Spielmann D. Allowing the right Margin the European Court of Human Rights and the National Margin of appreciation doctrine: waiver or subsidiarity of Euripean review?. Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS). Working Paper Series. University of Cambridge. Faculty of law. 29 Feb. 2012. 30 p. Tsyt. za: Trykhlib K.O. Doktryna «mezh vil'noho rozsudu» u praktytsi Yevropeis'koho sudu z prav liudyny. Pravna veda a prax: vyzvy modernych europskych integracnych procesov. 27–28 novembra, 2015. URL : http://dspace.nlu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/13420/1/Trykhlib_65-68.pdf 15. A., B. and C. v. Ireland : ECH R Judgment, 16 Dec. 2010. HUDOC. European Court of Human Rights. URL : http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{«fulltext»:[«A»,»\u0418 and S v. Ireland»],»documentcollectionid2»:[«GRANDCHAMBER»,»CHAMBER»],»itemid»:[«001-102332»]} (date of access : 24.11.2015). Titl e from the screen. Tsyt. za: Trykhlib K.O. Doktryna «mezh vil'noho rozsudu» u praktytsi Yevropeis'koho sudu z prav liudyny. Pravna veda a prax: vyzvy modernych europskych integracnych procesov. 27–28 novembra, 2015. URL : http://dspace.nlu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/13420/1/Trykhlib_65-68.pdf [ukr]. 16. Case of Herrmann v. Germany, Partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{«fulltext»:[«precedent»],»documentcollectionid»:[«COMMITTEE»,»DÅCISIONS»,»COMMUNICATEDCASES»,»CLIN»,»ADVISORYOPINIONS»,»REPORTS», «RESOLUTIONS»],»itemid»:[«001-111690»] Tsyt. Za : Mahrelo M. Pretsedent, yakyi ne zobov’iazuie: deiaki aspekty sutnosti rishen' yevropeis'koho sudu z prav liudyny v pravovii systemi kontynental'noho prava. Visnyk Akademii advokatury Ukrainy. 2013. Chyslo 3 (28). S. 64. 17. Wildhaber L. Rethinking the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights between Law and Politics / Ed. by J. Christoffersen, M.R. Madsen. Oxford University Press, 2011. P. 213, 214. Tsyt. Za : .Butkevych O. Zastosuvannia praktyky ta vykonannia Ukrainoiu rishen' Yevropeis'koho sudu z prav liudyny (Policy Paper). 2017. S. 18. URL : https://parlament.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Propozicii_Politiki_ECHR.pdf [ukr]. 18. Butkevych O. Zastosuvannia praktyky ta vykonannia Ukrainoiu rishen' Yevropeis'koho sudu z prav liudyny (Policy Paper). 2017. S. 13. URL : https://parlament.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Propozicii_Politiki_ECHR.pdf [ukr]. 19. Tam samo. 20. Heorhiievs'kyi Yu.V. Polityka «spravedlyvoho prava» u sudovii praktytsi. Pravo u suchasnomu politychnomu zhytti Ukrainy: nauk. vyd. / ker. avt. kol. A.O. Selivanov. Kyiv : Lohos, 2020. S. 138. [ukr]. 21. Metodychni rekomendatsii schodo zdiisnennia ekspertyzy normatyvno-pravovykh aktiv (ikh proektiv) na vidpovidnist' Konventsii pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod. Zatverdzheni Uriadovym upovnovazhenym u spravakh Yevropeis'koho sudu z prav liudyny 15.08.2006. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/n0003323-06#Text [ukr]. 22. Butkevych O. Tsytovana pratsia. 23. Tam samo.
<< Back
