The Code of Administrative Justice of Ukraine in the system of regulation of alternative methods of solving public legal disputes and conflicts

Abstract

The article states that the sphere of resolving public-law disputes and conflicts is insufficiently regulated and indicates that it requires further adoption of relevant legislative acts or amendments to current acts in this area. At the same time, it is noted that the legislative principles for the application of alternative methods of resolving public legal disputes and conflicts are contained in the Code of Administrative Justice of Ukraine. It is noted that the Code of Administrative Justice of Ukraine contains the following legislative provisions regarding the possibility of using alternative methods of resolving public legal disputes and conflicts. The specified Code was adopted on July 6, 2005, but part of the norms related to the above issues and, in particular, mediation in the Code appeared much later. In particular, the Code was supplemented with such norms on the basis of the third clause of Chapter IV "Final and Transitional Provisions" of the Law of Ukraine "On Mediation" dated November 16, 2021. In view of the analysis of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, this legal act orients the parties to the possibility of resolving the dispute in the following ways: 1) by conciliation; 2) through mediation as an out-of-court method of dispute settlement; 3) by applying to the court to settle the dispute with the participation of a judge. At the same time, the Code regulates only conciliation and going to court to settle the dispute with the participation of a judge. Mediation as an alternative way of resolving public legal disputes and conflicts is taken into account by the Code in different ways, but the detailed regulation of this procedure, as is known, is carried out by a separate Law. The article states that the proceduralization of such a form as settlement of a dispute with the participation of a judge is of a rather limited nature and is connected with the introduction at the level of procedural law of a minimal set of rules without detailed regulation of the specifics of their application. Taking into account the professional consciousness of judges and their constant activity within the limits of the maximum procedural regulation of such activity, the stated approach of the legislator, in our opinion, needs clarification and development at the level of other acts. In particular, within the limits of such acts, it would be possible to approve a scientifically based and practically tested method of dispute settlement with the participation of a judge.