Conceptual place and fundamental perspective of judicial precedent in the legal system of Ukraine

Abstract

This article examines the role and relevance of the introduction of judicial precedent as a source of law in Ukraine, which is related to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (hereinafter – the Convention), Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECHR) and judicial practice of national courts. The opinion is substantiated that the introduction of judicial precedent as a source of law in Ukraine will have positive consequences for the legal system of Ukraine and will provide additional protection of human rights and freedoms. Prospects for the possible introduction of judicial precedent as a source of law and important institutional changes that can lead to a complete transformation of the current system are determined. In connection with this, the issue is analyzed, and a generalized characteristic is given regarding the role of court precedent in advanced countries, such as Switzerland, Poland, and France. The properties of the legal systems of the world, the peculiarities of the use and status of the Convention, and the judicial practice of the ECHR in Ukraine are also considered. The article presents an analysis of scientific research by advanced scientists and lawyers who formed a professional view on issues related to judicial precedent and possible reform of the current legal system. A generalized description of the concept regarding the nature and features of judicial precedent as a source of law is provided. Simultaneously, the author of the article notes that the issue of defining the conceptual place and fundamental perspective of judicial precedent in the legal system of Ukraine is very relevant and important for Ukraine, as it is related to the protection and provision of rights and freedoms of man and citizen. Accordingly, special attention is paid to the fact that this issue should be resolved at the legislative level, as this will help to avoid collisions, misunderstandings, and possible duplication of norms. Moreover, the introduction of legislative innovations and reforms requires the generation of an appropriate legal bridgehead with the possible training of courts. Thus, the author concludes that the main consequences of the introduction of judicial precedent as a source of law will be the following: stability and predictability of the legal system, increasing the independence of the judicial branch of government, borrowing the best international experience, unification, and harmonization of current judicial practice, respectively, additional protection of rights and civil liberties.