Abstract
This article is devoted to the analysis of the essence of judicial precedent as a source of law in Ukraine, its legal nature and the definition of the place among the sources of national law. The issue of judicial precedent, its role has worried many scholars of the Soviet Union, and now it is the focus of many scholars and is central to the study of jurisprudence. Given the determination of the place of precedent among the sources of law, a general analysis of the system of sources of law in Ukraine is conducted.
 During the analysis the structure of judicial precedent is considered on the example of the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, several alternative definitions of the term "judicial precedent" are given. Some scholars suggest that "judicial precedent" is a decision based on a general rule of law created by a court that courts of the same or lower instance must comply with, and that their decisions in future cases should be based on this rule of law. The article establishes the role of judicial precedent in the legal system of Ukraine, emphasizes its importance in that it significantly increases the motivation of court decisions.
 Attention is also paid to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights - a typical example of judicial precedent - as a mandatory source of law in Ukraine. Emphasis is placed on the positive and negative consequences of the official recognition of judicial precedent as a source of law in Ukraine. Considerable attention is also paid to the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the legal positions of the Supreme Court.
 The authors emphasize the recommendatory nature, in addition to the precedents of the European Court of Human Rights, judicial precedent as a source of law. This is confirmed by the thesis that the rule of law can be reflected in laws and regulations, as judicial precedent is not officially recognized as a source of law in Ukraine, it is believed that court decisions do not create rules of law. The authors emphasize the need for recognition at the legislative level of judicial precedent as a source of law.
Highlights
Що дана точка зору цілком виправдана, адже бувають такі випадки, коли рішення судів першої інстанції касаційної інстанції залишає без змін, адже воно ідеально написано, і бере його в основу для формування єдиної позиції.На нашу думку, прикладами рішень вищих судів, що носять нормативний характер, виступають рішення Верховного Суд, Конституційного Суду України і рішення Європейського суду з прав людини, незважаючи на те, що останні не є результатом національних судів
Що визнання судового прецеденту як джерела права може покласти край прогалинам та колізіям у законодавстві, зможе забезпечити справедливий судовий розгляд та єдність судової практики
Summary
Правова природа та місце судового прецеденту в системі джерел права України Дана стаття присвячена аналізу сутності судового прецеденту як джерела права в Україні, його правової природи і визначенню місця серед джерел національного права.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: 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.
