THE PRINCIPLE OF PROCEDURAL ECONOMY AS A COMPONENT OF THE EFFICIENCY OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

Abstract

The article is devoted to the disclosure of the content of the principle of procedural economy as a component of the efficiency of administrative proceedings. An analysis of domestic case law in administrative proceedings and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in matters related to the implementation of the principle of procedural economy. Based on the analysis of the practice of the Supreme Court in administrative proceedings, the author proves that in domestic courts there is a tendency to give preference to the principle of procedural economy over some other principles of administrative proceedings (access to justice, official investigation, etc.). It is argued that such an approach does not correspond to the modern content of the principle of procedural economy, which requires the court to adhere not only to reasonable deadlines for consideration and resolution of the case, but also other principles of the rule of law. It is substantiated that an effectively organized trial includes ensuring the principle of procedural economy; single decision of the judge, where possible, procedural issues; ensuring the fair exercise of their procedural rights and responsibilities, as well as fair, public and prompt proceedings. It is proved that the implementation of the principle of effective judicial protection of the rights and interests of a person in administrative proceedings is directly related to the solution of such complex issues as: the length of court proceedings, reasonable time, procedural savings. The author argues that the effectiveness of the judicial process as a necessary condition, in particular, compliance with reasonable deadlines for consideration and resolution of disputes, depends on many factors, namely – compliance with the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of procedural rights, compliance with deadlines (duration) principles of equality and adversarial proceedings and the right to ineffective protection, the obligation to enforce a court decision, the limits of judicial discretion (discretion).