Execution of justice in martial law: to the question of legislative changes

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of current procedural legislation, «draft-regulatory package» on the activities of courts and judges in the legal regime of martial law in order to identify and eliminate possible regulatory-procedural obstacles (gaps) in the sphere of justice. It was stated that the transfer of Ukraine to the format of military state administration led to the adoption of a number of laws in the field of justice. These laws have a «complementary», «corrective» nature, their rules are aimed at specifying, clarifying, amending or supplementing the current legal framework of the state. The inexpediency of the imperative legislative regulation of certain organizational and legal issues in the field of justice is substantiated. Territorial change of jurisdiction of court cases in case of objective necessity should be carried out on the basis of a discretionary decision of the President of the Supreme Court to another safest court, and not to the «most territorially close court» as defined by the legislator. The key here should be the security of the court, not its territorial proximity. The administration of justice by the courts under the legal regime of martial law should be carried out not only in inseparable connection with ensuring real access to justice for everyone, but also providing necessary and safe conditions for judges of the judicial system of Ukraine.
 The legislator needs to legitimize the developed project procedural developments in the field of justice in order to optimize the work of the courts of the judicial system of Ukraine during the martial law regime. Such legislative proposals to the codes of procedure concern such matters as: a) the organization and holding of meetings of judges in a state of war or emergency, including the remote participation of judges in such meetings; b) the procedure and procedure for the distribution of court cases in court in the event of an objective impossibility to apply automated determination of the composition of the court in this or that court case; c) organizational and procedural form of participation of participants in the trial in a court session by video- conference outside the court premises using their own technical means; d) the possibility of participation of judges in a court hearing remotely by videoconference using their own technical means.