СПИСОК ОПУБЛІКОВАНИХ ПРАЦЬ ЗА ТЕМОЮ ДИСЕРТАЦІЇ

в яких опубліковано основні наукові результати дисертації:

1. Глуханчук О. В. До питання вирішення окремих проблем

організації діяльності органів судової влади в аспекті перегляду рішень адміністративних судів.

університету. Серія «Юридичні науки». 2015. Випуск 6-2. Т. 1. С. 112-117.

2. Hlukhanchuk O. V., Foreign experience in reviewing court decisions and the possibility of using it in the course of administrative judicial proceedings of Ukraine (on the example of England, France and Poland). Visegradjournal on human rights. 2015. № 6/2. P. 92-96. (Словацька Республіка).

3. Глуханчук О. В. Принципи перегляду судових рішень

адміністративних судів. Науковий вісник публічного та приватного права. 2016. №1. С. 89-93.

4. Глуханчук О. В. Особливості перегляду судових рішень

адміністративних судів у порядку касаційного провадження. Науковий вісник Ужгородського національного університету. Серія «Право». 2016. Випуск 41. Т. 3. С. 84-89.

5. Глуханчук О. В. К вопросу пересмотра судебных решений административных судов по вновь открывшимся обстоятельствам. Право и Закон. 2017. №1. С. 107-112. (Киргизька Республіка).

6. Глуханчук О. В. Поняття та види конституційних гарантій судового захисту. Підприємництво, господарство і право. 2017. №5 (255). С. 100-103.

які засвідчують апробацію матеріалів дисертації:

7. Глуханчук О. В. Характеристика загальних принципів перегляду судових рішень адміністративних судів. Реформування національного та міжнародного права: перспективи та пріоритети: Матеріали міжнародної науково-практичної конференції (м. Одеса, 23-24 січ. 2015 р.). Одеса: ГО «Причорноморська фундація права», 2015. С. 60-62.

8. Глуханчук О. В. До питання спеціальних конституційних гарантій судового захисту. Новітні тенденції сучасної юридичної науки: Матеріали міжнародної науково-практичної конференції (м.

2015 р.). Дніпропетровськ: ГО «Правовий світ», 2015. С. 82-83.

9. Глуханчук О. В. До питання спеціальних принципів перегляду судових рішень адміністративних судів України. Сучасні правові системи світу: тенденції та фактори розвитку: Матеріали міжнародної науково- практичної конференції (м. Запоріжжя, 26-27 серп. 2016 р.). Запоріжжя: Запорізька міська громадська організація «Істина», 2016. С. 70-73.

10. Глуханчук О. В. Сутність перегляду судових рішень адміністративних судів України як конституційної гарантії судового захисту. Сучасне державотворення та правотворення: питання теорії та практики: Матеріали міжнародної науково-практичної конференції (м. Одеса, 9-10 груд.

2016 р.). - Одеса: ГО «Причорноморська фундація права», 2016. С. 74-76.

11. Глуханчук О. В. Запровадження Єдиного електронного судового вікна, як спосіб оптимізувати процес забезпечення провадження у справі. Теоретичні та практичні проблеми правового регулювання суспільних відносин: матеріали міжнародної науково-практичної конференції (м. Харків, 20-21 січ.

2017 р.). Харків: ГО «Асоціація аспірантів-юристів», 2017. С. 35-38.

SUMMARY

Hlukhanchuk O. V. Revision of Decisions of Administrative Courts as a Constitutional Guarantee of Judicial Protection. - Qualifying paper (manuscript copyright).

PhD thesis in Law, specialty 12.00.07 «Administrative Law and Process, Financial Law, Information Law». - Scientific Institute of Public Law, Kyiv, 2017.

Author defines the content of constitutional guarantees of judicial defence with offer to provide its interpretation equal to definition of conditions and means ensuring the rights and freedoms of individuals and legal entities are actually and properly exercised in a judicial proceeding. Different scientific approaches to constitutional guarantees are analyzed with justification of separation into two groups: 1) general;

2) special. Features and structure of each type are outlined along with guarantees’ role in protection of right for judicial defence.

Author provides the definition of «administrative court» which is a judiciary body tasked to settle the specific disputes between individuals or legal entities and public officers acting in the scope of their authority. Thesis sets out recommendations for defining the aim of administrative judgment reversal as means of fair trial ensuring resulting in protection of citizen’s constitutional rights and freedoms; this process is characterized with supervisory, protective, restorative and educational functions.

Grounds are provided for new approach to interpretation of judgment reversal legal nature which is proved to be a multiple-vector concept: on the one hand, judgment reversal is aimed at protection of citizen’s constitutional rights and freedoms (in this court provides an opportunity for claimant to countervail the state body’s abusive acts or omission of acts challenged in the administrative court or countervail the administrative court itself which failed to settle the claim on certain ground); on the other hand, judgments’ reversal is a tool used by the superior judiciary component to supervise the inferior ones and prevent its arbitrary behavior.

Content and meaning of legal regulation of administrative judgments’ reversal as purposive state activity aimed at proper implementation of this constitutional guarantee with the use of specific tools. Using the criterion of legal force, author has analyzed the scope and content of legislative acts regulating the administrative judgments’ reversal, its gaps and inconsistencies with recommendations for selection of optimal solutions of its efficiency improvement.

Content of administrative judgments’ reversal principles as scientifically grounded and codified basic concepts (ideas) obligatory for the reversal procedure is analyzed. On the basis of generalization of scientific approaches to law classification reasoning is provided for necessity to distinguish between two groups of principles of administrative judgments’ reversal: 1) general - basic concepts and notions comprising the foundation of administrative court activity including the judgment reversal (legitimacy, rule of law, legal liability, operational flexibility, publicity); 2) special: instance principle; principle of process subjects’ exclusive role; principle of judgment reversal limitation; principle of judgment reversal based on disclosed circumstances; principle of challenging institute «narrowing».

Author identified the peculiarities of administrative judgments’ reversal in appellate and cassational proceedings with justification of its legal approximation. It is stressed that the concept of judgments’ reversal must be designed to define the unified procedure of appellate and cassational proceedings for all courts in order to correctly apply the current legislation on judiciary functions and guarantee the right to challenge and revise the judgments.

Research provides background for further analysis of grounds and procedure of administrative judgment reversal upon the disclosed circumstances affecting the case decision (under disclosed circumstances we mean facts which were available in the course of primary proceeding followed by the court ruling but were not disclosed to third parties, their representatives and other parties to administrative process or judicial representatives upon the condition of meeting all legal requirements to ensure full and comprehensive disposal of a case followed by legitimate and justified decisions. In order to improve the legal regulation of grounds and procedure of administrative judgment reversal upon the disclosed circumstances the necessity for the following measures implementation is proved: harmonization of current legislation and activation of “gap filling” process - specification of provision (Part 1 of Article 245 of the Administrative Proceeding Code of Ukraine) containing the notion of «significant circumstances» in order to avoid any abusive practices and manipulations referred to right for request; formalization of the exact moment of disclosed circumstances identification in order to set the correct proceeding terms: define the format of procedural document drafted in case of refusal to settle a claim on relevant judgment reversal; identification of terms for the parties’ notification of decisions made upon the reversal results; identification of the decision bindingness.

Author characterizes procedures of administrative judgments reversal related to different case categories.

3) procedure of case admission to the proceeding; 4) subjects who are parties to the proceeding on administrative judgments reversal related to different case categories; 5) legitimacy of reversal judgments.

Author has detected and generalized the comparative provisions of judgment reversal legal regulation in different countries (England, France, Germany, Poland, USA and Canada) focusing on best foreign practices which can be used as background for Ukrainian legislation updating including referring the administrative courts to specialized jurisdiction, shift from three-level to two-level structure, extra attention paid to judicial practice unity principle applied in administrative hearings.

Reasoning is provided for necessity to update the integrated informational space within the judicial power limits and establishment of «Single Electronic Judiciary Window» along with drafting of relevant Guidelines on Electronic Submission of Documents to the Court. It is stated that establishment of this procedure will allow to optimize the archivation and registration procedures eliminating the necessity to transfer the cases between the courts; prevent any possible corruptive actions and significantly decrease the level of bureaucracy involved; minimize the turnover of «replicated claims» and other means of intentional delays generating along with jurisdiction manipulations; implement measures of prosecution in cases involving authority and power abuse in judicial sector.

Key words: administrative courts, appellate proceeding, guarantees, cassational proceeding, disclosed circumstances, legal regulation, judgment reversal, principles of administrative judgment reversal, judgement, judicial defence.

LIST OF APPLICANT’S PUBLICATIONS Main scientific results of the thesis:

1.

2. O. Hlukhanchuk. Foreign Experience in Reviewing Court Decisions and the Possibility of Using it in the Course of Administrative Judicial Proceedings of Ukraine (on the example of England, France and Poland). Visegrad Journal on Human Rights. 2015. №6/2. P. 92-96.

3. O. Hlukhanchuk. Principles of Administrative Judgment Reversal. Scientific Journal of Public and Private Law. 2016. №1. P. 89-93.

4. O. Hlukhanchuk. Administrative Judgment Reversal in Cassational Proceedings. Scientific Journal of Uzhgorod National University. 2016. №41. Vol. 3. P. 84-89.

5. O. Hlukhanchuk. Administrative Judgment Reversal Based on Disclosed Circumstances. Pravo i Zakon. 2017. №1. P. 107-112.

6. O. Hlukhanchuk. Concept and Types of Judicial Defence Constitutional Guarantees. Entrepreneurship, Business and Law. 2017. №5 (255). P. 100-103.

Publications of thesis approbation:

7. O. Hlukhanchuk. Classification of General Principles of Administrative Judgment Reversal. International scientific-practical conference “National and International Law Reforming: Perspectives and Priorities” (Odessa, January 23-24, 2015). 2015. P. 60-62.

8. O. Hlukhanchuk. Special Constitutional Guarantees of Judicial Defence. International scientific-practical conference “Tendencies of Modern Legal Science” (Dnipropetrovsk, December 4-5, 2015). 2015. P. 82-83.

9. O. Hlukhanchuk. Special Principles of Administrative Judgment Reversal in Ukraine. International Scientific-Practical Conference "'Modern Legal Systems of the World" (Zaporizhia, August 26-27, 2016). 2016. P. 70-73.

10. O. Hlukhanchuk. Administrative Judgment Reversal as Constitutional Guarantee of Judicial Defence in Ukraine. International scientific-practical conference “Theoretical and Practical Issues of Modern Lawmaking” (Odessa, December 9-10, 2016). 2016. P. 74-76.

11. O. Hlukhanchuk. Establishment of Judicial “Single Window” Approach as a Tool for Proceeding Optimization. International scientific-practical conference

“Theoretical and Practical Issues of Social Relations Regulation ” (Kharkiv, January 20-21, 2017). 2017. P. 35-38.