Collection of assets into state income: unique Ukrainian measure as seen from the perspective of human rights and fair trial standards

Regional human rights courts like the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), and the African Court of Human and People's Rights (ACtHPR) have become popular sites of mobilization for victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home. Besides being platforms for individual remedy, human rights courts increasingly shape social norms and state policy within countries, making them attractive avenues for rights advocates to develop new norms or to push domestic authorities to reform legislation. The judges of these courts can decide, for example, whether same-sex couples have a right to be married, if prisoners have the right to vote or receive HIV/AIDS treatment, or when a state can deport illegal immigrants to a country where they will likely be tortured. As these courts pass their judgments, they often find themselves in conflict with states that are violating human rights of marginalized groups on a large scale and are unwilling to implement international rulings. Although international human rights courts have become increasingly popular venues among victims and activists who seek justice when justice fails at home, we are only beginning to understand how activists play roles in shaping the development of regional human rights courts' case law—the body of judgments that shapes how judges will make their decisions in the future. We now have plenty of international relations and international legal research on the interactions between states and international courts: how judges in these courts wrestle between deferring to the interests of member state governments whose actions are on trial and sticking closely to the conventions' fundamental yet evolving principles (Alter et al., 2019; Helfer & Voeten, 2014). As some states begin to resist international courts' authority, scholars have begun to examine the dynamics of this backlash (Hillebrecht, 2022; Madsen et al., 2018; Sandholtz et al., 2018). Recent studies have also demonstrated that human rights advocates—whether NGOs or individual lawyers—have a significant impact on shaping the jurisprudence of international courts and the impact judgments have in concrete locations (Kahraman, 2018; Sundstrom, 2014; van der Vet, 2012; Kurban, 2020; Conant, 2018; Harms, 2021; Cichowski, 2016; Hodson, 2011; Haddad, 2018). Meanwhile, these advocates themselves have been subject to repression and stigmatization by governments as part of the backlash phenomenon. Without an adequate understanding of the factors shaping activists' engagement with international courts, we risk undervaluing their strategic impact on the expansion of case law, the human rights protection of marginalized groups who cannot find remedies at home, and the domestic implementation of these judgments in an age of state backlash. In this section, we summarize the three papers contained in this symposium and their original contributions to these themes. Over the last decade, dozens of countries have erected legal barriers or started vilifying campaigns to stymie the work of NGOs (Buyse, 2018; Chaudhry, 2022). One tactic in this toolkit is the enactment of burdensome regulation on NGOs that receive funds from foreign donors as they allegedly promote foreign agendas (Christensen & Weinstein, 2013; Dupuy et al., 2021). States that frequently abuse human rights are especially prone to target NGOs that engage in strategic litigation (Hillebrecht, 2019). Most NGOs depend on foreign funding, and NGOs that litigate international cases fall disproportionately in this category, but do funders affect the selection of cases? In “Foreign Agents or Agents of Justice? Private Foundations, NGO Backlash, and International Human Rights Litigation,” Heidi Haddad and Lisa Sundstrom examine the extent to which Western donors, particularly private foundations, have encouraged NGOs in Europe to litigate at the ECtHR as a human rights advocacy strategy. They examine overall patterns of donor funding and NGO litigation records, and look in more detail at the case of Russian NGOs' foreign funding and litigation records. The analysis is extremely timely, as the Russian government's criminalization of independent civil society actors, especially in the human rights field, and their accusation that foreign funding turns NGOs into “foreign agents” have been crucial elements of the Russian regime's autocratization. This claim has also provided fuel for Russia's disenchantment with the ECtHR in recent years, contributing to the assessment of many observers that Russia's full-scale attack on Ukraine was the last straw in an inevitable collision course leading to its exit from the Council of Europe. Haddad and Sundstrom debunk the idea that foreign donors are pushing NGOs toward strategies of human rights litigation. Instead, they argue, there is more evidence that NGOs themselves promoted the mechanism of international litigation as a strategy that donors later adopted. This article is a poignant reminder of the advocacy tools that Russian human rights activists and citizens have lost as a result of their government's departure from the Council of Europe, including ECtHR jurisdiction. Yet it also provides insight into the likely roles of foreign donors in other country cases where NGOs are using international court litigation as a human rights advocacy strategy, which is often a target of the ire of national governments, as explored in the next article in the symposium. When states attack human rights NGOs within their borders and/or international human rights courts themselves, how does this affect the willingness of those NGOs to take cases to international courts, and the ways in which they do so? De Silva and Plagis ask this question in their article about state backlash against NGOs in the case of Tanzania and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. A fascinating empirical question they pose is: does state backlash against NGOs increase NGO litigation at international courts (to contest state repression at those courts and use international mechanisms when domestic ones are not available), roughly in line with Keck and Sikkink's famous “boomerang pattern” (Keck & Sikkink, 1998), or decrease it due to heightened fear and restricted NGO capabilities that state repression creates? Employing a process-tracing analysis of NGOs' involvement in three cases before the African Court at different stages of the Tanzanian government's backlash against the Court, De Silva and Plagis find that “two-level backlash” by states can result in both phenomena, either promoting or deterring NGO legal mobilization at international human rights courts, depending on certain conditions. The three selected cases concerning the death penalty, the rights of persons with albinism, and the rights of pregnant schoolgirls and mothers, which took place at different time periods, demonstrate a number of patterns of state backlash interacting with NGO strategies. The authors find that domestic-level state backlash deterred domestic NGOs from partnering with international NGOs in litigation, but that such backlash, when it repressed domestic political and legal mobilization opportunities, actually encouraged both Tanzanian and international NGOs to turn to the African Court more frequently to seek remedies. International-level backlash in turn only deterred NGOs from international litigation when such backlash consisted of state efforts to restrict NGOs' ability to engage in litigation, and not when the international backlash was in the form of routine noncompliance with African Court rulings. Importantly, the authors find that NGO responses to state backlash were significantly shaped by their degree of legal consciousness and expertise with the rules, proceedings, and workings of the African Court. Those NGOs with less knowledge and experience were more likely to back away from engaging with the Court under the pressure of state backlash. De Silva and Plagis conclude that “NGOs' persistent human rights advocacy in the face of state backlash is a double-edged sword,” in the sense that they may not be deterred by state backlash initially, but there is a danger that their continued determination to engage in international litigation could prompt governments to engage in even more severe forms of backlash, with critical impacts on international courts and already vulnerable human rights defenders. Rights advocates have a growing menu of institutions and courts available to them. How do activists choose at which institution to lodge their cases in a world where legal remedies have diversified, or as some have argued, fragmented (Koskenniemi & Leino, 2002)? In “What Makes an International Institution Work for Labor Activists? Shaping International Law through Strategic Litigation,” Filiz Kahraman goes beyond the tendency of legal mobilization studies to only examine how activists interact with a single court or institution. Instead, Kahraman opens up how rights advocates imagine which institution is most receptive to their claims. Drawing on a comparative interview study of British and Turkish trade union activists and their legal mobilization campaigns at international courts and quasi-judicial institutions like the International Labor Organization (ILO), Kahraman examines how activists first probe and then strategically identify which court or international institution is most susceptible to their primary goals of influencing structural reforms and setting new norms. Through this probing process—or dynamic signaling game between courts and litigants—activists push a court's jurisprudence and case law into new issue areas. For instance, at the ECtHR, Turkish trade unionists challenged domestic courts' ruling that public sector workers did not have the right to establish unions, even though the ECtHR had no established case law on labor rights in 1990s. They won the case, with the ECtHR finding that Turkey violated the right of public sector workers to unionize. These cases not only had an impact within Turkey, but over the next decades, similar cases brought by British unionists would spin off the early precedent set by the Turkish legal mobilization efforts. Kahraman argues that they ultimately pushed the ECtHR to recognize the basic trade union rights as fundamental human rights. Kahraman sheds light on the often hidden strategies behind international litigation. Activists litigate not just for the immediate impact on the current case they work on, but how they envision that all the cases they work on may shape norms and domestic structural reforms further in the future. Whether an institution is perceptive of claims lies in the eye of the beholder. Kahraman finds that besides targeting institutions with high compliance rates, they also take cases to institutions with low rates of compliance, especially “if these institutions have extensive judicial authority to create new international norms.” So, it is not the de jure protection set by an international courts, but rather how activists perceive the juridical responsiveness and judicial authority of courts—or, how judges adopt either an activist approach or restraint in response to incoming cases and how willing states are to implement cases of a court, respectively—that determines why activists select certain courts or quasi-judicial institutions (like the ILO). Kahraman gives us new tools to interpret how activists perceive authority and receptiveness and respond to opportunities. Rather than static external legal remedies, courts and quasi-judicial institutions are opportunity structures that are malleable to the strategic vision of the activist or litigant. The articles in this symposium together reveal a number of key overlapping insights. At the broadest level, they demonstrate that activists' behaviors and strategies influence international courts' jurisprudence, politics within states, and the human rights outcomes of everyday citizens—and these influences have often been hidden in our existing canon of research on international courts. In addition, all of these articles show that, while activists may face challenges in their efforts, often including significant backlash from their home state governments, they also continue to retain significant agency through their creative efforts to develop legal strategies and circumvent state repression. Activists perennially innovate: sparking the ideas that inspire donors who fund them; calculating how to continue their litigation work when government actors threaten them; and taking risks in litigation to push courts to expand how they define human rights. However, along with these uplifting conclusions, there are worrying patterns that demand future research. States are increasingly pushing back against the powers of international courts to bind them to costly measures, and as this symposium has shown, national governments often point to activists as contributors to this “problem” of invasive international human rights standards. A growing body of research has tracked how human rights defenders of all kinds globally are under threat from actors like governments and corporations who disagree with their contentious actions. We need more studies that gather comprehensive data and systematically track these threats, specifically with regard to activists who engage in international human rights litigation. We suspect that such activists are likely disproportionately targeted due to the international visibility of their complaints. We also desperately need research into possible innovative responses to these threats to activists—responses from activists, funders, governments of countries that support human rights, and international courts themselves. Freek van der Vet is a University Researcher at the Erik Castrén Institute of International Law and Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki and the principal investigator of the Toxic Crimes Project. Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom is Professor of Political Science at the University of British Columbia. She is the director of the ActinCourts network at UBC and conducts research on legal mobilization by Russian activists.

The article is dedicated to a comprehensive analysis of the legal nature of the human right to a fair trial, the study of mechanisms for its normative and legal enforcement, and the effectiveness of its implementation through the lens of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Particular attention is paid to the systematic interpretation of this right in the context of international human rights standards and its correlation with the national legal systems of the states – parties to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The article conducts a doctrinal study of the right to a fair trial, defines its place in the hierarchy of fundamental human rights, and substantiates its absolute nature in the context of the modern concept of human rights. This right is one of the key elements of the rule of law, guaranteeing access to effective judicial protection and ensuring a balance between public and private interests in a legal state. Significant attention is given to analyzing the role of the judiciary as the primary guarantor of the realization of this right, while judicial protection is considered not only as an instrument for restoring violated rights but also as a structural element of the justice mechanism, which determines the democratic principles of the functioning of the state apparatus. The judicial system is obliged to ensure compliance with a set of procedural guarantees that prevent arbitrary restrictions on a person’s rights to access justice and to have their case reviewed objectively. The study identifies the main structural components of the right to a fair trial, including:the right to have a case heard by an independent, impartial, and competent court; the right to equality of arms and adversarial proceedings; the right to legal certainty in judicial decision-making; the right to the openness and publicity of the judicial process; the right to have a case considered within a reasonable time, as an essential element of effective justice. It is noted that access to justice is a prerequisite for the realization of the right to a fair trial. Access to justice is proposed to be understood as a real opportunity, guaranteed by the state and ensured by effective legal mechanisms, for a person to appeal to the court to protect their rights, freedoms, or legitimate interests. It is argued that the primary task of the European Court of Human Rights in every case is to assess the overall fairness of the proceedings. Compliance with the requirements of a fair trial should be considered in each case, taking into account the development of the entire proceedings, rather than based on the isolated examination of one specific aspect or a particular instance. The article also examines the issue of contradictions between national judicial systems and the standards of the European Court of Human Rights, which sometimes necessitate the revision of legal norms at the level of domestic legislation. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates that a number of states face difficulties in implementing the Court’s decisions, which negatively affects public trust in the judiciary. It is important to emphasize that the institutional capacity of national judicial systems must correspond to European standards of justice, ensuring that citizens have a real opportunity for effective protection of their rights. Failure to meet such standards can lead to systemic problems in the field of justice and an increased number of appeals to the European Court of Human Rights. In the context of international law, the need for harmonization of national legislation with the requirements of the Convention is emphasized, which would contribute to increasing the effectiveness of the realization of the right to a fair trial. This issue is particularly relevant for countries undergoing judicial system reforms and striving to strengthen its independence. The conclusions of the article emphasize that the human rights protection role of the European Court of Human Rights is a key factor in ensuring legal certainty in judicial practice. The enforcement of its decisions is mandatory for the member states of the Convention, and their disregard may have negative consequences for a country’s international legal reputation. Keywords: effectiveness, legal mechanisms, European court of human rights, fair trial, justice, judicial practice, convention, human rights, access to justice, judiciary, judicial independence, impartiality, equality of arms, adversarial proceedings, legal certainty.

The case law of the European Court of Human Rights is of great importance for the formulation of human rights standards as it applies the European Convention on Human Rights by interpreting the prescribed rights and freedoms taking into account social reality and legal regulation in Council of Europe member states. When joining this political organization the Republic of Serbia carried out the procedures of adjusting the legislation to the convention requirements, so that, in normative sense, Serbian family law systematically follows modern standards of human rights protection. The decisions of the Court in cases in which the issues of establishing paternity was applied by DNA analysis are conditioned by the circumstances of each individual case. In this paper reasearch is devoted to the two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights versus Republic of Serbia on determining the origin of the child from the father judgments that have a family law in the narrow sense in which Court took the position that domestic legislation did not take into account the relevant elements of the case, the possibility to establish a balance of relevant interests when determing the identity of the biological father regarding DNA analysis. By definition genetic testing implies the analysis of one genome and its products, its function or DNA or chromosomal analysis aimed at identifying or contradicting certain facts. This method involves comparing the DNA profile of a child with DNA profile of the potential father by comparing locus - specific gene location or DNA region on chromosome - which differ in their structure and length, so that non-blood person have different structure of the molecule in each analyzed locus, while biological relatives have the same structure. This means that their DNA profiles have visible traces of genetic heritage. Although every person has a vital interest in finding out information that complete his/her own knowledge of his/her background it is important to know that third party protection can prevent him/her from being forced into medical testing of any kind, including DNA analysis. Member States have different solutions to deal with in cases where a potential father refuses to undergo tests necessary to establish facts of a biological origin. In some jurisdictions non-compliance with medical testing is sanctioned by monetary or imprisonment penalty, while in others it is for the failure to act on a warrant the court activates the presumption of paternity. When paternity cannot be determined by DNA analysis, Member States must provide the determination of paternity by alternative means of evidence taking into account the existence of a fair balance between the right to know the origin and the right of potential father not to undergo this type of medical expertise.

Purpose. The purpose of the work is to clarify the content of the standards of the right to access to court and a fair trial in administrative proceedings, as well as to analyze the role of the European Court of Human Rights in the sphere of regulation of these standards. Methodology. The methodology includes a comprehensive analysis and generalization of the available scientific and theoretical material and the formulation of relevant conclusions and proposals. Such methods of scientific knowledge were used: dialectical, analysis, synthesis, formal-legal, structural, comparative-legal. Results: in the process of research, it is proposed to consider the standards of administrative proceedings as a constituent element of international standards of human rights and freedoms, which aim to increase and ensure the effectiveness of judicial protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the process of resolving disputes, one of the parties of which is the subject of power. An analysis of the role of the European Court of Human Rights in the sphere of regulation of administrative process standards was carried out. It was concluded that the harmonization of regulations in the field of defining the standards of the right to access to court and a fair trial will contribute to the creation of a single European legal space. Originality. In the process of research, it was established that the standards of the right to access to court and a fair trial constitute the minimum level of ensuring the rights of a person in the judicial process, as well as the presence of characteristic features of their application in the consideration of administrative cases. Practical significance. The results of the research can be used in law enforcement activities in the process of improving the current administrative procedural legislation of Ukraine, as well as in law enforcement activities during the judicial protection of violated individual rights in relations with public authorities.

This article examines the influence of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on the development of the civil procedural law of Ukraine and the practice of applying its norms by domestic courts. The concept and essence of the precedent nature of decisions (decisions) of the European Court of Human Rights, their place in the system of so-called "judicial sources" of civil procedural law are defined. The shortcomings of the Law of Ukraine "On the implementation of decisions and application of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights" are indicated, which recognizes the practice of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of law and the position of domestic courts regarding this deficiency.
 It is noted that the source of law according to the Law of Ukraine "On the Execution of Decisions and Application of the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights" is also the practice of the European Commission on Human Rights and its role in the procedure for considering complaints about violations of the Convention is determined.
 The directions of the influence of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights on civil proceedings are outlined, where it is concluded that a precedent can be formed on any procedural issue due to the dynamic interpretation by the specified court of the provisions of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 and its protocols . It is noted that the practice of the European Court of Human Rights generally constructs legal ideas regarding the principles of civil procedure and the right to a fair trial. On the example of a separate decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the law enforcement and regulatory influence on the results of consideration and resolution of a civil case and the development of the civil procedural law of Ukraine, respectively, are analyzed. The importance of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights for the civil justice of Ukraine is summarized. In particular, taking into account the precedent practice of the ECtHR during the consideration and resolution of civil cases will eliminate the factors that serve as the reason for the appeal to the Court and will introduce European standards of protection of human rights and freedoms into Ukrainian civil proceedings. As a result, the impact of the decisions of the ECtHR will reduce the need to appeal to an international judicial institution in search of just satisfaction, which will accelerate the protection of the rights and freedoms of the parties to a civil case within the framework of national judicial jurisdiction.

The present study is dedicated to evaluating the participation of the Republic of Moldova in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, better known as the European Convention on Human Rights. This convention established the most effective regional mechanism for the protection of human rights. The state granted its citizens the possibility of exercising the right to individual application before the European Court of Human Rights by ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights in July 1997. Since then, more than 17,000 applications have been submitted to the ECHR alleging that the Moldovan authorities have failed to comply with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. In over 600 cases, the European Court of Human Rights has found violations of the obligations assumed by the Republic of Moldova upon ratifying the European Convention on Human Rights. In this article, we aim to address the Republic of Moldova’s participation in the European Convention on Human Rights in an evolutive manner. Thus, after establishing the historical context in which this regional treaty was ratified, we will describe the actions of the Council of Europe in the Republic of Moldova, identify the most important human rights treaties developed under the auspices of the Council of Europe that have been ratified by the Republic of Moldova, and strive to provide a comprehensive overview of the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights within the national legal order. Finally, this study explores several landmark cases in which the European Court of Human Rights has established general principles. These cases have led to substantive changes in the legal system of the Republic of Moldova. They illustrate how the Court’s jurisprudence has influenced national law-making and institutional reform, contributing to the consolidation of the rule of law and the alignment of domestic norms with European human rights standards.

In the recent period of Ukrainian history, scholars pay attention to the discussion of the relationship between Ukrainian constitutional law and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the place of rulings and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the legal system of Ukraine. The analysis of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and current Ukrainian legislation is made in the article. It is made in order to determine the impact of this act of the Council of Europe on the constitutional law of Ukraine. It is noted that the Convention plays an important role in the process of protection of human rights and freedoms in Ukraine and has an impact on the implementation of the rule of law, which relate to individual’s constitutional status. It is noted that the European Convention significantly increases the level of the effectiveness of constitutional human rights legislation. The role of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights in the formation and activity of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has been determined. The thesis that within the ratio of the Convention and Ukrainian law, the supremacy of the latter within the national legal system does not eliminate the need to comply with international obligations is substantiated in the article. The grounds for restricting human and civil rights and freedoms in accordance with the requirements of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the constitutional legislation of Ukraine are considered in the article. In order to ensure national security, the restriction of human and civil rights and freedoms in a state of martial law and emergency is analyzed. By introducing martial law and a state of emergency, it is possible to concentrate temporarily all the levers of control over the individual’s status by coercive means within the framework of official power. The conclusion that the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights have had a significant impact on the formation and development of human and civil rights and freedoms as basic, value priorities of the constitutional law of Ukraine is substantiated in the article. Key words: constitutional law, sources of law, Council of Europe, Constitution of Ukraine, Constitutional Court of Ukraine, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, European Court of Human Rights.

The article deals with the ways of regarding the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of criminal procedural law of Ukraine, which is relevant both in terms of the criminal procedure as a science and for the practice of law enforcement. The purpose of the article is to formulate the concept of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of criminal procedural law of Ukraine. The paper justifies the opinion that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights is developed and based on the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights, regardless of the country in which they were adopted (i. e. has a polyterritorial jurisdiction over states being the participants of the Convention). The article proves that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights is draws upon the decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights regardless of the time of adoption, i. e. it includes the decisions adopted before Ukraine ratified the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The author points out the appropriateness of classifying decisions that have acquired the status of final as «case law of the European Court of Human Rights». It is also mentioned that there is a need to include final decisions in the case (as the matter of fact), which have a decisive nature and contain a legal position in this case, into the scope of the category «case law of the European Court of Human Rights». Moreover, the article substantiates the necessity to include the decisions adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in full, i. e. not only the set forth legal positions, into the category of «case law of the European Court of Human Rights». Following the results of the study, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of criminal procedural law of Ukraine is defined as a set of decisions adopted by the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights, which have entered into force and contain legal policies which either clarify or specify the provisions of the Convention as for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and relate to human and citizen’s rights and freedoms.

The article analyses the process of applying the European Court of Human Rights case law and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 in criminal proceedings in Ukraine. The basic principles arising from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and their impact on national legislation and court practice are investigated. Particular attention is paid to the issues of observance of the right to a fair trial, presumption of innocence, prohibition of torture and effective investigation of human rights violations. The key cases of the European Court of Human Rights against Ukraine, which have determined the directions of reforms in the field of criminal justice, are analysed. The problems of implementation of the European Court of Human Rights case law in the criminal justice system of Ukraine, in particular, the formal approach to the use of case law, the lack of an effective mechanism for the execution of judgments and insufficient training of law enforcement and law enforcement agencies are investigated. The following prospects for improving the application of the European Court of Human Rights case law in criminal proceedings in Ukraine are identified: 1) the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine to comply with European standards, in particular, with regard to the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, protection against torture and unlawful detention, ill-treatment, etc.; 2) the development of recommendations to improve the training of judges, prosecutors, lawyers and pre-trial investigation bodies; 3) the strengthening of control over the observance of human rights, the reasonableness of the time limits during the pre-trial investigation, and fair and lawful trial; The following prospects for improving the application of the European Court of Human Rights case law in criminal proceedings in Ukraine are identified: 4) the improvement of procedures for verification, evaluation and examination of evidence in order to protect the defence from unlawful actions of the prosecution; 5) the introduction of mechanisms for the effective implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in individual cases; 6) the provision of adequate funding and resources to law enforcement and law enforcement agencies.

The article is devoted to the study of the European Court of Human Rights practice implementation into the national legal system by domestic legal science, in particular, administrative law. It is noted that the issue of the European Court of Human Rights decisions implementing into the national legal system arose before Ukraine in 1997 when the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was ratified. It is noted that a significant role in the process of national law improving belongs to the European Court of Human Rights, which is the body monitoring compliance with the Council of Europe’s Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by the Member States. Emphasis is placed on the fact that to date there has been no comprehensive study of the European Court of Human Rights practice in the administrative law sources system, which would be based on Western legal culture in Ukraine. It is noted that the European Court of Human Rights decisions nature is a “challenge” for the domestic legal system, that did not recognize case law as a source of law and, moreover, the interpretation of the category “human rights” by Strasbourg court is qualitatively different from its understanding by domestic legal doctrine, still being largely based on the perception of rights as opportunities guaranteed by law. Until now, the principle of legality was the fundamental law principle, and the justification of the decision taken in the administrative process was reduced to a reference to the prescription of the normative legal act. Legal provisions set out in judgments of the European Court of Human Rights are based on other legal postulates. The analysis of scientific sources, the object of study of which is the European Court of Human Rights practice as a source of administrative law, is being tcarried ou. It is suggested that the existing scientific research of the European Court of Human Rights as a source of administrative law be classified into two groups: scientific papers, the subject of which is the European Court of Human Rights practice; scientific papers, the subject of which is the impact of the European Court of Human Rights practice on the national legal system, the immanence of features of forms of lawforms to this practice, etc. It is concluded that the analysis of scientific developments of the European Court of Human Rights practice as a source of administrative law by domestic legal science allows us to conclude about the relevance of the chosen topic, its lack of research and the need for elucidation.

The scientific article examines the activities of the European Court of Human Rights and identifies the significance of the relevant case law of the European Court for the case law of Ukraine. It is noted, that one of the issues, studied within the topic, is the sources and legal framework, which is especially relevant in the adoption of the Law of Ukraine «On Enforcement of Decisions and Application of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights», according to which courts use the Agreement and case law as a legal source in cases. The activity of the European Court of Human Rights, the role and impact on the judicial system of Ukraine are analyzed, the relevant examples are given. It is concluded, that the implementation of international human rights law into Ukrainian law is a complex procedure that requires special doctrinal consideration, as today Ukrainian citizens are among the most active complainants to the European Court of Human Rights, which indicates a fairly high insecurity by national legal mechanisms. In order to increase the credibility of the judiciary, courts should take into account the European experience, decisions and observations of the Court in their work. The Court's case law is said to play an important role in the judicial reform process as it approaches the European legal framework for human rights standards in Europe. The current law cannot fully protect a person or build justice if it is not applied properly. Based on existing ECtHR rulings, judges can accurately understand the rule of law and apply it properly, which will help improve human rights, accurate understanding and implementation of the Agreement on Ukraine. Based on the study, it was concluded, that it is necessary and appropriate to implement the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as in this way it is possible to ensure the protection and defense of human and civil rights and freedoms

The urgency of the issue of human rights implementation is determined by its permanent nature. Human rights ensuring has become not only a moral imperative, but also a key indicator of the countries' development and their readiness to cooperate in the international arena. Human rights implementation is an important component of any democratic society. The level of freedom and justice within society depends on how efficiency human rights are implemented. The European Court of Human Rights activity, the practice of which is recognized as a source of national law, is of particular importance. The purpose of the study is to cover the practice of the European Court of Human Rights as a factor in improving the human rights provision in Ukraine. It is emphasized that the practice of the European Court of Human Rights is considered as having a precedent nature, although the system of decisions of the Strasbourg Court does not have formal features characteristic of "classical” precedent law. It is indicated that the European Court of Human Rights practice can influence national law in several ways: the use of legal provisions formulated by the European Court of Human Rights by national courts; interpretation by national public authorities of the norms of national legislation through legal provisions formulated by the European Court of Human Rights; amending national legislation in accordance with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights; development of the human rights doctrine. It is emphasized that the decisions of the Court are binding for all member states, parties to the Convention. Therefore, national judicial authorities are also obliged to apply the legal provisions set forth in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in cases where they concern the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is summarized that the European Court of Human Rights practice is a crucial factor in the development of domestic law, contributing to the improvement of the human rights implementation. The practice of the European Court of Human Rights influences the formation and development of national legislation. In the case that national legislation does not meet international standards, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights may encourage the state to amend its legal acts to meet convention standards.

To adapt to societal development and the enhancement of human rights standards, the European Court of Human Rights has continuously updated the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights through an evolving interpretative approach. This doctrinal evolution has un-dergone significant practical development, including raising the standards of human rights pro-tection, aligning with the evolution of international law, and restricting individual rights of con-tracting states. In recent years, the emergence of new rights such as environmental rights has facilitated the construction of a fourth-generation human rights legal framework through pro-gressive interpretative application of the Convention in judicial practice. The European Court regards the Convention as a "living instrument," and based on social consensus and the Conven-tion’s purpose and spirit, it cautiously and gradually explores the application of evolving in-terpretation and its limitations, including adherence to the principle of necessity in a demo-cratic society, maintaining judicial restraint, and clarifying the reasonable boundaries of treaty inter-pretation. The introduction of restriction principles contributes to the refinement of a dy-namic interpretative mechanism, offering valuable insights for China in optimizing treaty inter-preta-tion, aligning with international human rights norms, and safeguarding national interests.

Ukraine has recognized the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights by acceding to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The implementation of Western concepts of the rule of law, human dignity and human rights stipulates study of the European Court of Human Rights practice, which, in accordance with national law, is the source of Ukrainian law. It is emphasized that the enshrinement of the rule of law principle in a number of laws was accompanied by a normative provision on the necessity to understand the content of this principle through the European Court of Human Rights practice.
 The purpose of the study is to elucidate the general provisions characterizing the impact of the European Court of Human Rightsice practice on the national system of Ukraine.
 It is substantiated that the European Court of Human Rights ensures the relevance of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provisions, compliance of its rules with modernity, ensuring the general spirit of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which is designed to uphold and ensure the values of a democratic society.
 It is noted that in interpreting the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Court of Human Rights is a kind of subject of legal doctrines making in the field of human rights affecting the legal systems of the states parties to this Convention.
 Some decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in cases against Ukraine, which played a significant role in changing the national legal system, are analyzed, in particular,the decisions in the cases Koretsky and Others v. Ukraine, Natalia Mykhaylenko v. Ukraine, and Volokhy v. Ukraine.
 The following legal provisions as the separation of law and the law are mentioned, giving priority to law over the law in case of contradiction between them; understanding the content of the rule of law, the importance of legal certainty and reasoning of the decision to restrict human rights, legal equality of people, and giving real access to a fair trial to a person, etc.
 It is concluded that when considering the applicants' complaints about Ukraine's non-fulfillment of its obligations in the field of human rights, the European Court of Human Rights forms legal provisions that become an integral part of the domestic legal system, in some cases they (the decisions) are the factor in changing legislation, and influence the legal doctrine transformation.

Problem setting. According to the Law of Ukraine # 3477-IV «On implementation of judgments and application of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights», 23.02.2006 (Art. 17) the courts of Ukraine apply the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocols (hereinafter – Convention, ECHR) and the case-law of the European Court of Human Right (hereinafter – the Court, ECtHR) as the source of law. By the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine # 431, 10.09.2014 the Government Commissioner on ECtHR matters has been authorized to co-ordinate «the implementation of the Court’s judgments, which are the interpretation of norms of Convention and its inalienable part, contain the norms of law and are subject to application in the way of implementation of international treaties». Such positions clearly show the aspiration of Ukraine to strengthen the role of European standards of human rights in national legal order. At the same time the case-law of the ECtHR covers not only the numerous legal standards related to concrete rights and freedoms, but also the doctrinal approaches to the interpretation and application of the ECHR which lay the foundation of the Court’s jurisprudence. There is lack of studies of such doctrinal approaches in Ukraine while the conditions of their application at the national level are generally unknown. Resent research and publications analyses. Such doctrinal approaches are well developed in the ECtHR case-law and are deeply explored by European scholars (i. e. R. Bernhardt, D. Gomien, D. Harris, G. Letsas, R. St. J. Macdonald, S. Maringele, F. Matscher, J. McBride, H. Petzold, M. de Salvia, L. Zwaak). Meanwhile a few Ukrainian researchers have paid attention to the problem of principles and methods of interpretation and application of the ECHR (L. Gouseynov, T. Doudash, V. Marmazov, P. Rabinovich, S. Fedic, L. Tsvigoun, S. Shevchouc and some others). The deep analysis of the doctrines, which are developed due to the Court’s case-law are absent in Ukrainian jurisprudence. Paper objective. Main objective of the article is to study the doctrine of state’s positive obligations to secure the conventional rights and the legal grounds of such obligations under the ECHR law in correlation with the other doctrinal approaches which are used by the ECtHR in the perspective of their implementation on the national level. Paper main body. As the basic concepts and principles (also known as the methods of interpretation and application of the Convention) official on-line resources of the Council of Europe indicate: dynamic purposive interpretation (the concept of “Convention as a Living Instrument”), the autonomous concepts, negative and positive obligations, subsidiarity, proportionality, just satisfaction, “margin of appreciation” of the state, equality of arms, horizontal application of rights and their hierarchy. Among them there are several doctrines (the doctrines of dynamic purposive interpretation, “margin of appreciation” of the state, autonomous concepts and the state’s positive obligations) which have been recognized and developed due to the Court’s jurisprudence. They accumulate the «unwritten law» of the Convention (as they are not mentioned in the text of ECHR) and aim to ensure the sequence and logic system of promotion and protection of human rights. They are closely interrelated and interdependent. These doctrines are more about the scope and character of the state’s obligations under the Convention, rather then the subject to direct application in court proceedings on domestic level. Meanwhile these doctrines provide the means of assessment of compliance of the national policies and legal practice in the field of fundamental rights and freedoms with the European standards. Conclusions of the research. Thus the principle doctrinal approaches to the interpretation and application of the human rights and fundamental freedoms ensure the conceptual and methodological unity of the law of the Convention. Due to the Court’s case-law these doctrines obtained official recognition, international authority, validity and credibility as well as the normative (regulative) features. So they shall be incorporated to the national legal order. For that they shall be well-known to all kinds of the state agents (legislative body, state administration and law-enforcement bodies and judiciary) who shall fulfill their duties with respect to the doctrinal standards. Key words: human rights, state’s positive obligations, “margin of appreciation” of the state, purposive dynamic interpretation, case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.