Yearly journal of scientific articles “Pravova derzhava” Volume 33 (2022), 131-140 p.
DOI: 10.33663/1563-3349-2022-33-131-140
Parkhomenko Natalia. The persuasive precedent as a result of the judicial rule-making (essential and substantive issues)
The persuasive precedent is a result of the enforcement activities of the Court of Major Jurisdiction, by clarifi cation and elucidation of the true content of the rule of law in certain factual circumstances. It is resulted in a legal act, which is a decision that are of a recommendation nature for other courts but due to the credibility of the Court, the judgement could signifi cantly aff ect the formation of an established international and national judicial practice.
The invalidity, incoherence and sometimes fallacy of the judgment lead to their law eff ectiveness or ineffi ciency. This eventually underline confi dence in the judiciary and does not justify public expectations about fair trial. Under such circumstances, resort to the persuasive precedents could contribute to the settlement of relations; restoration of violated human rights and freedoms, ensuring the principle of the rule of law. The creation and infl uence of the persuasive precedents on the practices ensure its integrity. The potential of the persuasive precedents adjusts the dogma of law. It transforms the understanding of purpose of judicial rulings in regulation of social relations, their essence, content and form of expression, recognition of their role as a means of legal regulation.
Separately, it should be noticed the correlation between the persuasive precedent and the legislative activity of responsible authorities and also their compensatory and stabilizing impact on the systems of international and national law, should be recognized. In formal legal terms, such precedents aren’t the source of law but they complement, what is called, the legal substance, making the system of law more persistent.
Key words: persuasive precedent, judicial rule-making, continental law, common law, ECHR, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Tribunal.
References
1. Praktyka Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu: vplyv na sudovu systemu. URL: https:// supreme.court.gov.ua/userfi les/media/new_folder_for_uploads/supreme/Praktika_VPVS_vustyp [ukr]. 2. Maksymov S. Pravovaia realnost: opût fylosofskoho osmûslenyia: Monohrafyia. Nats. yuryd. akad. Ukraynû ym. Ya. Mudroho. Kharkov: Pravo, 2002. S. 186 [rus]. 3. Salmond, John W. Jurisprudence or the Theory of the Law / London, Stevens and Haynes, Bell Yard, Temple bar, 1902. 673 pages. Tsytuietsia za: Kviatkovska B. I. Sudovyi pretsedent: deiaki teoretychni aspekty, Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu, 2013. Seriia Pravo. Vypusk 21. Chastyna II. Tom 1. S. 41–42 [ukr]. 4. Horban
M. Iu. Sudova pravo konkretyzatsiia: zahalnoteoretychni aspekty: Dysertatsiia na zdobuttia naukovoho stupenia kandydata yurydychnykh nauk. Lviv, 2015. S. 119–120 [ukr]. 5. URL: https://termin.in.ua/pretsedent/#:~:text 6. Sudovyi pretsedent. URL: https://termin.in.ua/ pretsedent/#:~:text [ukr]. 7. Popov Yurii. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny yak perekonlyvyi pretsedent: dosvid Anhlii ta Ukrainy. URL: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php [ukr]. 8. Ohliad sudovoi praktyky KTsS VS u spravakh pro zakhyst hidnosti, chesti ta dilovoi reputatsii. URL: https://supreme.court.gov.ua/userfi les/media/new_folder_for_uploads/supreme/Ogliad_KCS.pdf S. 3 [ukr]. 9. Tsytuietsia za: Yurii Popov. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny yak perekonlyvyi pretsedent: dosvid Anhlii ta Ukrainy. URL: https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php: [ukr]. Markel A. American, English and Japanese warranty law compaired: should the U.S. reconsider her article 95 declaration to the CISG? Pace Intl L. Rev. 2009. v. 21. P. 163–204; Hackney P. Is the United Nations Convention on the international sale of goods achieving uniformity? La. L. Rev. 2001. vol. 61. P. 473–486. 10. Popov Yu. Yu. Pretsedentne pravo u konteksti zahalnooboviazkovosti sudovykh rishen ta ukrainski perspektyvy. Forum prava. 2010. ¹ 3. S. 357 [ukr]. 11. Kopytova O. S. Teoriia i praktyka sudovoho pravozastosuvannia v Ukraini: monohrafi ia. Kyiv: FOP Maslakov, 2020. S. 356 [ukr]. 12. Tam samo. S. 319. 13. Petryshyn O. Sudova praktyka yak dzherelo prava v Ukraini: problemy teorii. Pravo Ukrainy. 2016. ¹ 10. S. 22 [ukr]. 14. Pro sudoustrii ta status suddiv: Zakon Ukrainy. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1402-19#Text [ukr]. 15. Podorozhna T. S. Zrazkovi ta typovi spravy yak novyi mekhanizm administratyvnoho sudochynstva. Sudebno-yurydycheskaia hazeta. URL: https://sud.ua/ru/news/blog/124220-zrazkovi-ta-tipovi-spravi-yak-noviy-mekhanizmadministrativnogo-
sudochinstva [ukr]. 16. Martseliak O. V. Pravova pryroda aktiv Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy ta yikh rol u rozvytku nauky konstytutsiinoho prava. Visnyk Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy. 2015. ¹ 4. S. 118–121 [ukr]; Nykolaev E. A. Pravovûe pozytsyy Konstytutsyonnoho Suda Rossyiskoi Federatsyy: opredelenye, yurydycheskaia pryroda, ymplementatsyia v pravovuiu systemu. Pravo y polytyka. 2002. ¹ 3. S. 30 [rus];
Lazarev L. V. Konstytutsyonnûi Sud y razvytye konstytutsyonnoho prava. Zhurnal rossyiskoho prava. 1997. ¹ 11. S. 3 [rus]. 17. Zavydniak V. I. Vprovadzhennia sudovoho pretsedenta u kryminalnyi protses Ukrainy: monohrafi ia. Irpin: Universytet DFS Ukrainy, 2019. S. 322 [ukr]; Sobol O. I., Dzheka R. S. Vplyv praktyky Yevropeiskoho Sudu z prav liudyny na rozvytok sudovoi praktyky v Ukraini. Pravo i suspilstvo. 2018. ¹ 4. Chastyna 2. S. 288 [ukr].
<< Back
