Quasi-Regulatory Role of the Legal Opinions of the Supreme Court on the Example of the Case of Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage in the Family Dispute

Abstract

Judgments of the Supreme Court, their legal nature, tasks and importance have repeatedly been the subject of discussions among the legal scholars and the legal practitioners, so this issue will not be the main point of the article.Quasi-regulation as one of the most significant functions of the legal opinions of the Supreme Court will be described in the article on the example of family dispute cases.The legal opinions of the Supreme Court are generally acknowledged as quasi-precedents and the article contains the conclusion that such terminological definition is the most balanced as the Supreme Court caselaw could not be called precedent in the meaning of this definition in Anglo-Saxon law.The research has proved that quasi-precedents can set the quasi-legal regulation.In that context, however, it is important to distinguish that precedents can create legal regulation, while the quasi-precedents can provide the rule of law with additional regulatory content by its wider interpretation.This can be clearly observed when the Court of Cassation interprets in common the general and special legal provisions.It is proved that quasi-regulation, which is provided by the Supreme Court in certain cases, is the result of the several objective processes, including:– convergence of Anglo-Saxon and Romano-Germanic Law;– transformation of the national legal system from authoritarian soviet to democratic;– gradual abandonment from positivistic interpretation of legal provision in favor of rule of law and faire justice (human-centered);– more frequent application of dynamic interpretation of legal provisions.At the same time, it should be emphasized that quasi-regulation is not the prior task of the Supreme Court for the reason that ensuring the uniformity and sustainability of case law remains its basic function. Quasi-regulation is an additional instrument aimed at strengthening the rule of law in Ukraine.In this regard such an instrument is more useful when: (1) rules of positive law do not fulfill this function; (2) there is a need to use the legal regulation for resolving the conflicts of law and filling the gaps in legislation.Quasi-regulation contributes to the development of the doctrine of law and becomes an indicator for the legislator that certain relations need urgent regulation, that public relations have changed, become more complicated and need immediate legislative regulation, and that legislators demonstrate slow response tothe mentioned changes.