Would the purpose of an effective justice be attained if the court dismisses the claim for the reason that the court finds the claimant to have chosen an ineffective legal remedy to protect the violated right?
As an attorney, I do care about what I do and how effectively I am doing it and whether people would benefit from it. Can I help those who ask me for help and protect their rights in court? Thus, unlike other legal professions, a trial lawyer’s success and the outcome of his or her efforts depend on such lawyer not alone, although, of course, it is about such lawyer in the first place, but the court as well, and whether it administers justice or not.
Since recently attorneys hear more and more in court that “the claimant has chosen a wrong legal remedy.” The court's “concern” about the legal remedy chosen by the claimant being effective to protect the violated right and the aspiration to evade the resolution of the dispute just frustrate and even infuriate the claimants with their approaches. The court's desire to dismiss the claim in view of what the court believes is an ineffective legal remedy chosen by the claimant is becoming more and more notable. It has come to the point that the things considered for many years to be correct are no longer practical or effective.
One can remember the words the ancient Greek philosopher Plato said two and a half thousand years ago, “[t]his is the justice of heaven ... which the ordaining powers have specially ordained; take good heed thereof, for it will be sure to take heed of you.”
Is it right to dismiss a claim only because the court finds that the claimant's claim is ineffective? Moreover, who measures the effectiveness of the legal remedy chosen by the claimant to protect the violated right? And is the purpose of commercial litigation attained if the court dismisses the claim only because it believes the legal remedy chosen by the claimant is ineffective?
This article is not about criticizing but encouraging judges and lawyers to think over the conclusions formulated by the Supreme Court and the Grand Chamber and the existing approaches to the trial of cases, reflect on the purpose of court, rethink legal conclusions already formulated and, perhaps, even deviate from them and suggest new approaches, more reasonable and fair, to ensure that a fair trial and legal remedies are in place to protect violated rights.
So, what was the beginning?
It started yet when courts embarked on dismissing claims for reasons that the claimant chose a legal remedy unavailable under the law. Subsequently, the Supreme Court of Ukraine found such an approach to be incorrect, as it was too formalistic and inconsistent with the Constitution. However, having changed the procedural codes and other laws in 2017 and starting from 2018, courts began to dismiss claims on the ground that the claimant chose an ineffective legal remedy to protect the violated right.
Thus, if the invalidation of a contract or the recognition of a right were earlier considered to be appropriate remedies to protect rights, now there are questions whether it is possible to apply these remedies independently, with no other claims asserted. As it was the case before, in order to reclaim a land plot into ownership of the state or local community, it was necessary in the first place to invalidate the resolution of the government body or local government, by which the land plot was delivered into ownership, and then to invalidate the agreement and repossess the land plot, now it is not necessary to do all these things but merely ask the court to reclaim the land plot from third party’s illegal possession.
Surely it is strange that when the law or contract provides for one or another legal remedy to protect the violated right and claimants and courts have been for many years using such remedies to resolve specific disputed legal relations, it turns out now that it is no longer effective, so that the claim must be dismissed.
So, there is a question: does the court fulfil the tasks of proceedings in view of such approach to the trial of cases? Moreover, is the objective of justice achieved and are the violated rights restored in such a way?
Using templates
If some attorneys used to have an affection to “abusing templates” – sometimes referring unreasonably in their appeals to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights – now it is the Supreme Court who seems to have mastered this “skill” or rather an approach. Thus, there are lots of Supreme Court’s resolutions dismissing claims because of an ineffective legal remedy,” which are filled with quotations that “... the entity whose right is violated may not use just any – but very specific – legal remedy to protect its right,1” “... the court must protect a right or interest in an appropriate and effective manner,2” “... upon assessing whether the legal remedy chosen by the claimant is appropriate ..., courts should proceed on the basis of its effectiveness...”
In their judgments and resolutions, the courts refer in a word-for-word manner to conclusions of the Grand Chamber, saying that “... a specific legal remedy shall be applied to protect a civil right depending both on a type and contents of the legal relationship arising between the parties and the substance of the right or interest, which protection the person seeks, and on the nature of its violation, non-recognition or challenging. A court shall protect such rights or interests in a manner that is effective, i.e., the one that is consistent with the substance of the relevant right or interest, nature of its violation, non-recognition or challenging and the consequences of such acts,” and “the claim to protect a civil right shall correspond to the substance of the infringed right and the nature of the offense, ensure that the violated right is restored and, if it may not be so restored, assure that the person will be able to receive the relevant compensation.”
Underlying that “during the trial, a court shall ascertain: 1) of which legal relationship between the parties the dispute arose; 2) whether the legal remedy chosen by the claimant is available under law or contract; 3) whether the law or contract provides for an effective legal remedy to protect the violated right of the claimant; 4) whether the legal remedy chosen by the claimant is effective to protect its violated right in the disputed legal relationship,3 and that “such conclusions are, among other things, set out in Resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 5 June 2018 in case No. 338/180/17 (proceeding No. 14-144цс18, clause 57), dated 11 September 2018 in case No. 905/1926/16 (proceeding No. 12-187гс18, clause 40), dated 30 January 2019 in case No. 569/17272/15-ц (proceeding No. 14-338цс18), dated 1 October 2019 in case No. 910/3907/18 (proceeding No. 12-46гс19, clause 48), dated 9 February 2021 in case No. 381/622/17 (proceeding No. 14-98цс20, clause 14), and dated 2 February 2021 in case No. 925/642/19 (proceeding No. 12-52гс20, clause 42).”
Then all say unanimously that the statutory restrictions set for the substantive law remedies for the protection of a civil right or interest should be applied in compliance with Articles 55 and 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms providing that everyone is entitled to an effective legal remedy not prohibited by the law.” In addition, they demonstrate that they are aware of the ECHR case law by referring to Article 145 of the Judgment of 15 November 1996 in the case of Cahal vs. the United Kingdom, in which the European Court of Human Rights observes that Article 13 guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. Therefore, an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention must ensure that the person who seeks legal protection is able to restore the right so violated.”4
As a result of such “fundamental approaches,” the courts have invented a “formula” of how to dismiss a claim; such formula may be roughly put as: “The claims may not be sustained because the claimant is asking the court to apply an improper (ineffective) remedy.”
By repeating over and over, like the Lord's Prayer, the Supreme Court's findings that “… the court must protect a right or interest in an appropriate and effective manner,5” courts copy and paste the same phrases stored in their PCs that “... if the legal remedy chosen by the claimant is inconsistent with the remedies available under the laws ... this shall serve as a basis for the court to render a judgment to dismiss the claim”; “if the matter in dispute is not consistent with remedies available under the laws or the contract, the court shall dismiss the claim”6; “... the court shall refuse sustaining a claim that is inconsistent with an effective legal remedy to protect a right or interest.”7 “If the claimant chooses an improper legal remedy to protect its rights this shall serve as a stand-alone ground to dismiss the claim.”8
However, the phrase that annoys me the most is this: “... if a court concludes that the legal remedy chosen by the claimant is not available under law or contract and/or is ineffective in terms of protecting the claimant’s violated right, the claimant’s claims shall not be sustained as part of such legal relationship.”9 10
And what if [the court] fails to arrive at [such a conclusion]?
It looks like the court “should have been happy to help the claimant or public prosecutor,” but ... “... sustaining the claim based on the relief sought gives rise neither to the protection nor the restoration of the claimant‘s rights, such a legal remedy is not proper in terms of protecting a right and legitimate interest because, considering such a claim, the court does not protect any rights and legitimate interests vested in parties involved in business relations...”
It is my opinion that such an approach to the trial is nothing else but the evasion of dispute resolution by the court.
So, there is a question: what is the very rule effectively dictating that a legal remedy incorrectly chosen to protect the violated right precludes the court from investigating and resolving on the merits the claims brought before the court and serving as a basis to dismiss the claim? Where is it written that “the claim shall be otherwise dismissed.”
What does “effective” mean?
Do most judges think about what they are quoting and what “effective” even means? How thoughtful are they to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of the remedies chosen by the claimant and to justify their conclusion to such effect? More so as, in addition to quotes from the resolutions of the Supreme Court and the Grand Chamber, such assessment of the effectiveness of the legal remedy chosen by the claimant and the justification of the relevant conclusion are usually reduced to one or, to the maximum, two or three sentences.
Furthermore, it is often the case that the effectiveness of the legal remedy chosen by the claimant to protect the violated right is matched with the appropriateness and assessed not to verify whether the application of the chosen legal remedy will have a positive effect on the restoration of the claimant’s violated right and whether it is capable of restoring the claimant’s violated right, but rather whether the legal remedy chosen by the claimant is consistent (appropriate or adequate) with the substance of the violated right and the nature of its violation.
However, effective is, first of all, about being productive, that is, producing a result that is wanted. Often, but not always, this result is achieved when there is a mechanism to enforce a judgment, that is, when the claimant's claims, if sustained by the court, may be enforced. However, there are legal remedies that require no enforcement, such as invalidation of a contract, recognition of a right, or recognition of the absence of a right.
Another question is whether the court should in each case verify whether it is possible to renew/protect the violated right in the manner chosen by the claimant.11 I think it should not. After all, when a claimant brings a claim to recover a debt (money) from the respondent, the court does not find out whether the debtor has available funds, nor ascertains whether it is possible to renew/protect the claimant’s violated right in terms of the legal remedy chosen by it, nor clarifies whether such a legal remedy is available under the laws or contract, nor dismisses the claim on the ground that such a legal remedy (the collection of funds) is unavailable under the law or contract. If the debtor has an obligation to pay certain amount of money to the other party and fails to fulfil such an obligation, then it makes no sense to obligate the debtor once again (for the second time) to do it. If so, the collection of funds from the respondent is the most effective legal remedy for the claimant to obtain funds from the debtor. Although, theoretically, it can get funds by selling property belonging to the debtor.
The Supreme Court considers that “the legal remedy available to protect the violated right or interest should be such that the claimant will not need to resort to the court again.12” The application of any legal remedy available to protect a civil right and interest must be objectively justified and reasonable, appropriate and effective. “The effectiveness of a claim must be assessed based on the facts of the case and depending on whether by sustaining such claim the claimant's interest will be effectively protected, so that the claimant will not need to resort to the court repeatedly”13 . The legal remedy shall be complete and consistent with the principle of procedural economy, i.e., ensuring that there is no need to resort to the court seeking additional remedies14. “By applying such a criterion as the effectiveness of a legal remedy, the Supreme Court tries to create a situation when a person will not have to spend lots of time seeking the protection of its violated rights and interests. The judgment rendered must be enforceable.”15
However, is it mandatory for a legal remedy available to protect the violated right to be such that the claimant will not need to file a claim with the court repeatedly? And what if it is not as such?
Definitely, a legal remedy available to protect the violated right can be such that the claimant will not need to resort to the court repeatedly and, if it is indeed so, then, to such extent, the purpose of an effective protection might be in fact attained. This, however, does not rule out that a legal remedy may be such only. If the court finds that the legal remedy sought to protect the violated right does not result in full restoration of the violated right and the court believes that the person will need to file a claim with the court again, then it still does not mean that the claim must be dismissed for such reason. Someone wants to recover in court what is rightfully his or hers only, while someone wants the truth and justice to prevail in court. For someone, it is important to bring to an end the violation of his or her right and, for someone, it is important to receive a compensation as well.
Furthermore, everyone may dispose of his or her rights in relation to the matter in dispute at his or her sole discretion. That is why a person has the right to file with the court such a claim he or she considers to be necessary and he or she believes is capable of restoring his or her violated right. Just like lawyers who sometimes find it difficult to understand the conduct of their clients, judges sometimes find it difficult to understand the logic behind actions of lawyers (or parties they represent). But this is a usual thing to do. Because everyone has its own understanding of justice and its own measure of effectiveness. What is ineffective for someone may be very effective for another.
However, in view that it is the claimant, rather than the court, who chooses a legal remedy and determines how effective it is, the court has no right to and should not assess the effectiveness of the legal remedy chosen by the claimant. The purpose of the court is not to assess the effectiveness [of the legal remedy chosen by the claimant] but to resolve the dispute.
Anyway, a claim should not be dismissed merely because the court finds that the legal remedy sought by the claimant to protect its rights is ineffective.”16
If a court dismisses a claim on the ground that the court believes the claimant has chosen an ineffective legal remedy to protect its violated right, then the purpose of an effective protection is not attained all the same as it is the case when the claimant chooses an inappropriate legal remedy to protect violated right, because both ways the claimant needs to file again a new claim, setting out a different, but appropriate or effective, relief sought. Thus, in both cases the legal remedy does not meet the principle of procedural economy since the claimant is required to file again a new claim, so that the court may grant another or additional relief.
Should the court, upon resolving a dispute, measure the effectiveness of the legal remedy chosen by the claimant to protect the violated right? What is the purpose for which the person applied to the court and what is the mission of the court who tries the case?
Mission of the court
Article 6 of the Convention states that, in the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing .... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. As a matter of the European Court’s case law, the right to a fair trial includes the right to initiate proceedings not alone but also the right to have the dispute “determined” by the court.17
Thus, the purpose of commercial litigation is that the court must resolve fairly, impartially and timely disputes related to commercial activities and consider other matters falling within the jurisdiction of the commercial court to protect effectively disputed rights and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities, and the state.
By administering justice, the commercial court protects rights and interests of individuals and legal entities, as well as state and public interests. “The administration of justice is, by its essence, considered to be as such only if it meets the requirements to justice and ensures the effective restitution of rights.”18
However, to answer the question whether the court should assess the effectiveness of the legal remedy chosen by the claimant to protect the violated right when trying the case, it is necessary to clarify what the “purpose” is and what the “protection as the purpose” means, as well as what we should understand as the “purpose of protection” (what is the difference between them) and try to understand what the legislator meant saying about the objective of litigation.
The question about “the purpose of protection,” as well as the question about “the purposes of litigation”, can be seen in two aspects – “protection as the purpose” and “the purpose of protection.”
“… The purpose (goal) is a result and, in a “deeper sense,” a mental model showing an ideal image of the outcome expected for future, being an idea of the desired result. Sometimes the purpose is defined so that it covers the ways to achieve it. The purpose as an incentive guides and regulates human activities, determining their order of sequence, systematic nature, etc. In terms of philosophy, it is teleology (from Greek telos, “end,” and logos, “reason”) – a philosophical study of purposes of processes and phenomena – who deals with the problem of the purpose. Purposes are believed to be either established by God (H. Wolf) or by internal causes of the nature (Aristotle, G.W. Leibniz). The question of the purpose of justice may be considered in the context of its purpose (the purpose of justice) and justice as the purpose. Within the first meaning, justice is a process and a tool to attain certain purpose and, within the second meaning, it may be seen both as a process and as a purpose.”19
Therefore, the purpose can be treated as certain process, incentive, and desired result.
The purpose of an effective legal remedy is to restore violated, unrecognized or contested rights, while an effective legal remedy as the purpose and as the goal is the purpose of justice.
In view that Article 2 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine deals with the fair, impartial and timely resolution of disputes and the trial of cases for effective protection of violated, unrecognized or contested rights and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities and those of the state, that is, it is about the protection as the purpose of dispute resolution, rather than the purpose of protection, then the purpose of a commercial court is, accordingly, to resolve the dispute, rather than to assess merely the effectiveness of the legal remedy chosen by the claimant to protect the violated right.
By way of certain incentive, the court should be guided by the effective protection of violated, unrecognized or contested rights and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities and those of the state as the purpose of dispute resolution to attain the purposes of protection of person’s rights but should not be concerned with the protection as the purpose.
Thus, when resolving a dispute, the court should not find out whether the claimant's rights will be effectively protected by means of the legal remedy designated by the claimant in its statement of claim in line with the relief sought. Globally speaking, the court must verify two aspects – whether the right has been violated and whether it may be protected [whether the statute of limitations has not been missed if the respondent has filed the relevant petition] – and, depending on this and taking into consideration the other circumstances, either sustain or dismiss the claim.
If there is a dispute between the parties, the court must resolve the dispute and is not entitled to dismiss the claim on the ground that the court believes the claimant has chosen an ineffective legal remedy to protect the violated right, since the law sets out no such reason for dismissing the claim.
Therefore, an task of the court is to resolve the dispute, rather than to demonstrate to the parties that it is well-versed in stances of the Supreme Court and the case law of the European Court or to assess the effectiveness of the legal remedy chosen by the claimant to protect the violated right. The purpose for which the case is tried in court is to resolve the dispute, so that the parties involved in the dispute will not have to make additional efforts to resolve the dispute again or to resolve the dispute in a different way or to resolve another dispute arising out of the judgment. If the dispute is not resolved (if the task of proceedings is not attained), this is not about a fair trial or effective protection of violated rights, as the purpose of justice is not met.
Does current justice enable to restore rights effectively?
Article 5(2) of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine states that, if the law or contract does not set out an effective legal remedy to protect the violated right or interest of the person who resorted to the court, the court may, in line with the relief sought by such person, designate in its judgment such a legal remedy that is not contrary to the law.
But how often does the court designate in its judgment, in line with the relief sought in the statement of claim, such a legal remedy that is not contrary to the law? Is there any practical implementation of the mechanism contained in Article 5(2) of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, so that courts may determine an effective legal remedy to protect the violated right of a person?
There is none so far. At least I am not aware of this.
Though the legislation has been changed to expand the list of remedies available to protect violated rights and to afford the court an opportunity to designate in its judgment other remedies that are not contrary to the law, whenever the law or contract sets out no effective legal remedy to protect the violated right, current judicial practice is not, unfortunately, indicative of the courts’ desire to exercise the authority vested in the courts under the laws and to apply Article 5 (2) of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine to elaborate new and effective ways to protect violated rights.
Regrettably, the court would easily dismiss the claim rather than, in line with the relief sought in the statement of claim, designate in its judgment another legal remedy available, which is not contrary to the law and which will protect the violated right of the person who resorted to the court seeking the protection of his or her violated right or interest.
Therefore, it is not, unfortunately, the case that today's justice always ensure the effective restoration of rights.
Maybe it is the law that is the problem because the legislator was too lenient towards the court, having provided in the law that the court may, but not obligated to, designate in its judgment the legal remedy that is not contrary to the law whenever the law or contract is silent about an effective remedy available to protect the violated right. Maybe that is why the words “the court may” used in the law should be replaced with “the court shall,” so that the court fulfils more effectively the task of proceeding and resolves disputes, rather than dismisses claims because the claimant has chosen, in the opinion of the court, an ineffective legal remedy to protect the violated right.
Anyway, we must be kept in mind that it is the claimant who chooses the legal remedy that the court may grant by way of resolving the dispute, and that the court is not able to choose at its sole discretion and protect the claimant's rights by granting a relief this person does not seek.
Moreover, claimants and attorneys must keep in mind as well that the court has no right to go beyond the relief sought to determine, instead of the claimant, an effective legal remedy to protect the right.
When choosing a legal remedy available to protect the violated right, the claimant may choose between several remedies available under the law or contract, unless the law forbids it. If the law or contract provides for no remedy that would effectively protect claimant’s rights, freedoms or interests, the court can protect them in a way that is not contrary to the law. For this, however, the claimant must set out in its statement of claim another remedy to protect its rights, which is not contrary to the law, and ask the court to designate such legal remedy in its judgment in view that the law or contract provides for no effective legal remedy to protect its violated right. In addition, the claimant must give reasoning that it is needed to apply such a legal remedy. Otherwise, if the claimant fails to do so, the court will leave the statement of claim without action.
Conclusions
The right to a fair trial includes the right to initiate proceedings not alone but also the right to have the dispute “determined” by the court.
The court has no right to dismiss the claim only because the claimant has chosen, in the opinion of the court, an ineffective legal remedy. If a claim is dismisses for this reason it means that the person is actually denied the protection of his or her violated right and that the task of commercial proceedings, which is the resolution of disputes, is abandoned. Therefore, the court should not evade resolving disputes. The court must resolve the dispute to protect the violated right. The purpose of justice (protection of the violated right) may not be attained unless the dispute is resolved! The court should not make the claimant file repeatedly a new claim by dismissing the claim on the ground that the claimant has chosen an ineffective legal remedy to protect the violated right.
A commercial court has no right to go beyond the relief sought to determine, instead of the claimant, an effective legal remedy to protect the right. A court has no opportunity to choose at its sole discretion and protect the claimant's rights by granting a relief the claimant does not seek. It is always the claimant who chooses the legal remedy that may be applied by the court when resolving the dispute.
Afterword
Vasil I. Kisil used to like saying again and again that “law is the art of good and justice.”
I do not claim to know the ultimate truth. I respect many judges and respect their work. But I respect the law even more and I want the others to do so as well.
I am thankful to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, all defenders and volunteers, thanks to whom we can live and work, defend interests and protect human rights, and work for the good of Ukraine! I believe in our Victory and that justice and the rule of law do exist. I urge lawyers to respect the law and go on practicing the art of good and justice!
1 Resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 1 October 2019 in case No. 910/3907/18, dated 22 August 2018 in case No. 925/1265/16; Resolution of the Supreme Court dated 18 September 2019 in case No. 910/12028/18.
2 Resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 6 April 2021 in case No. 910/10011/19, dated 5 June 2018 in case No. 338/180/17; Resolution of the Supreme Court dated 18 November 2019 in case No. 902/279/18.
3 Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 19 January 2021 in case No. 916/1415/19.
4 Resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 20 July 2022 in case No. 806/5244/15 and dated 2 July 2019 in case No. 48/340.
5 Resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 6 April 2021 in case No. 910/10011/19 and dated 2 February 2021 in case No. 925/642/19.
6 Resolutions of the Supreme Court dated 2 August 2022 in case No. 926/365/19, dated 14 August 2018 in case No. 910/1972/17, dated 23 May 2019 in case No. 920/301/18, dated 25 June 2019 in case No. 922/1500/18, dated 24 December 2019 in case No. 902/377/19.
7 Resolution of the Supreme Court dated 18 November 2019 in case No. 902/279/18; Resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 7 November 2018 in case No. 488/5027/14-ц, and dated 19 January 2021 in case No. 916/1415/19.і
8 Resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 2 February 2021 in case No. 925/642/19 and dated 6 April 2021 in case No. 910/10011/19.
9 Resolution of the Supreme Court dated 6 September 2022 in case No. 926/2195/21; clause 52 of the Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 2 February 2021 in case No. 925/642/19; clause 99 of the Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 6 April 2021 in case No. 910/10011/19.
10 Resolution of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 19 January 2021 in case No. 916/1415/19; Resolution of the Supreme Court dated 6 September 2022 in case No. 926/2195/21.
11 Resolutions of of the Supreme Court dated 22 January 2019 in case No. 912/1856/16 and dated 14 May 2019 in case No. 910/11511/18.
12 Resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 19 January 2021 in case No. 916/1415/19 and dated 16 February 2021 in case No. 910/2861/18,
dated 26 January 2021 in case No. 522/1528/15-ц; dated 22 September 2020 in case No. 910/3009/18.
13 Resolution of the Supreme Court dated 6 September 2022 in case No. 926/2195/21.
14 Resolutions of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 2 February 2021 in case No. 925/642/19 and dated 22 September 2020 in case No. 910/3009/18.
15 L. Rohach. Analysis of the Case Law of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Through the Prism of Effectiveness and Appropriateness of Legal Remedies Available to Protect a Violated Right, 4 November 2022, https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pres-centr/news/1342235.
16 M. Kokhanska. Effectiveness of Remedies in Civil Litigation. Comparative and Analytical Law, No. 6, 2019, — pages 132 to 134.
17 ECHR Judgment in the case of Kutić v. Croatia and ECHR Judgment in the case of Bulanov and Kupchik v. Ukraine
18 Judgment No. 3-рп/2003 of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated 30 January 2003.
19 A.M. Berniukov, V.S. Bihun, Yu.P. Loboda, B.V. Malyshev, S.P. Pohrebniak, S.P. Rabinovych, V.S. Smorodynskyi, O.V. Stovba. JUSTICE: Philosophical and Theoretical Thinking. Collective Monograph. Kyiv, 2009. — pages 37 to 39.
Author: Oleg Kachmar