THE CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS IN ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY AND ITS INFLUENCE ON TRUST IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF AUTHORITY

Abstract

The article is devoted to highlighting the negative consequences of abuse of procedural rights in administrative proceedings, which necessitate measures to prevent and / or counteract such abuse. The author analyzes the provisions of national law, case law of its application, as well as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, based on which it is substantiated that the negative consequences of abuse of procedural rights occur directly for the parties and for the entire judicial system. It is argued that the abuse of procedural rights may have negative consequences for the implementation of such principles of justice as access to justice, compliance with the terms (duration) of legal proceedings in court, guaranteeing the constitutional principles of equality and adversarial proceedings and the right to effective protection. relevance of the execution of a court decision, the limits of judicial discretion (discretion). It has been proven that the abuse of procedural rights is due to the existence of a causal link between the relevant actions or omissions and the negative consequences of which they cause. Based on the analysis of judicial practice, it is proved that the abuse of procedural rights is most often aimed at unreasonably delaying or obstructing the consideration of the case, as well as the execution of a court decision. It has been established that lengthy court proceedings are often due to the dishonest behavior of the parties to the case. The study allowed us to state that the public danger of abuse of procedural rights in administrative proceedings is that actions (inaction), which constitute the content of such abuse of rights, cause negative consequences that may manifest themselves in the failure of the court to achieve administrative proceedings and for the court and the entire judicial system – in reducing the level of trust in the judiciary, in questioning the professionalism and authority of judges.