Abstract
The article reveals the basic principles of bringing a judge to constitutional responsibility due to violation of the oath as the main basis for this type of responsibility. It has been established that legislative and regulatory support of the procedure and peculiarities of bringing judges to legal responsibility is regulated by the following documents, as the Law of Ukraine «On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges», the Law of Ukraine «On the High Council of Justice», the Constitution of Ukraine, the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of 53 People's Deputies of Ukraine on the compliance of the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) with certain provisions of the Law of Ukraine «On the High Council of Justice», the European Charter on the Law “On the Status of Judges”, Conclusion No. 3 of the Consultative Council of European Judges into account of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on and the rules governing the professional conduct of judges, in particular, issues of ethics, incompatible behavior and impartiality, the Law of Ukraine «On the Prevention of Corruption», the Code of Judicial Ethics. It was found that only the High Council of Justice has the right to dismiss a judge from office in accordance with the procedure and the decision to dismiss the judge from office. It has been proved that systematic neglect of duties, which is by no means compatible with the status of a judge, revealing a judge's inadequacy to his position, serves as a good reason for dismissing a judge from office. It has been determined that the constitutional responsibility of a judge should be understood as constitutional proceedings for conducting investigations and bringing a judge to justice due to his violation of the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine and other laws. It has been establishedthat the dismissal of a judge from office as a result of his violation of the oath is one of the grounds for bringing the judge to constitutional and legal responsibility. It has been established that the main types of misconduct committed by judges in the context of breaking the oath are: 1) committing such acts (actions) that tarnish their titles and create doubts about the impartiality, objectivity and independence of their professional activities, in the long term affects the vision of honesty and the integrity of the judiciary; 2) their failure to comply with the restrictions and requirements specified in the Law of Ukraine «On the Prevention of Corruption»; 3) deliberately delaying the time limits for the consideration of a court case, determined by legislation; 4) violation of moral and ethical principles of behavior.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.