JUSTIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION OF DISCRETION AUTHORITIES IN THE ORGANIZATION OF JUSTICE

Abstract

This scientific article is devoted to the study of topical issues of legal certainty and the use of broad discretion in the formation of the national judicial system. Serious attention is paid to the issue of establishing the legislative and substantive limits of the discretionary powers of the subjects of power in the implementation of the tasks assigned to them. The national criteria of guaranteeing the rights of every citizen to protection against arbitrary interference of public authorities in their rights and freedoms and ensuring the possibility for a person to anticipate the actions of these bodies have been studied. It has been established that there is a mechanism in the rule of law to prevent the abuse of discretionary powers. Legislation and practice of its application are analyzed, which are intended to separate the limits of exercising such powers from manifestations of willfulness. The transparency, fairness and fairness of the selection of national judges during the recent competition before the Supreme Court was examined in detail. The virtually unlimited discretion of the judicial administration body in conducting competitive procedures for selecting judges and evaluating them is critically assessed. In the course of the research, it was found that the regulations on competitions for judges were spelled out, there were no specific safeguards against the overly broad discretion of the governing body − the CCSSU, and this allowed the institution to commit significant abuses. The regulatory definition of the limits of real discretion in the actions of the Commission is proposed, which should be carefully spelled out in the legislation. On the basis of specific examples from the current case law, the shortcomings in the legal formulation of substantiated and reasoned verdicts regarding the results of competitions before the Supreme Court are shown. It has been proven that the Governing Body has made an unjustified substitution for the proper motivation of its decisions by the unjustified use of too wide discretion. In this way, in the first place, the selection criteria set by the Law were not respected, and, secondly, the real consequences of the competition were hidden from society. In fact, the statutory motivation of the decision, instead of its purpose to be a measure of the legitimacy of decisions, was effectively reduced to the level of the way of exercising managerial administrative functions, which contradicts the position of the ECtHR on this issue.