THE PROBLEMS AND PECULIARITIES OF THE USE OF VIDEO CONFERENCE IN CIVIL PROCEEDING OF UKRAINE

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problems and features of the use of video conferencing in the civil proceedings of Ukraine. The use of modern video communication technologies in court proceedings allows solving the problem of territorial remoteness, saving the time of par­ticipants in court proceedings and reducing court costs. In conditions of quarantine, transport restrictions and forced self-isolation, and later - in conditions of war, change of territorial juris­diction and evacuation of a significant number of the population from their places of permanent residence, access to justice becomes difficult. In conditions where direct appearance in court is complicated by territorial or security factors, video conferencing guarantees the right of a person to participate in court sessions. At the same time, the institution of videoconferencing in the civil justice system of Ukraine is relatively new, which causes potential and real practical problems in its functioning. This makes the study of its features and problems relevant. The article defines the sectoral and national peculiarities of the use of video conferencing in the civil proceedings of Ukraine. The following problems have been identified in the use of video conferencing in civil proceedings: 1) unsettled issue of the procedure for initiating participation in the court session in the mode of video conference of other participants in the court process: witnesses, experts, legal experts, specialists, translators; 2) lack of an exhaustive list of reasons for refusing to grant an application (petition) to participate in a court session in videoconference mode; 3) the uncertainty of the question of whether it will be allowed to participate in a video conference outside the court premises after the end of the quarantine; 4) excessive formalism when establishing the requirement to send a copy of the applica­tion for participation in the court session to other participants in the court session via video conference outside the court premises; 5) the requirement to submit an application (petition) for participation in a court session in video conference mode for each court session separately; 6) disproportionate risk distribution of the technical impossibility of participating in a video conference outside the court premises; 7) depriving the participant of the case of the opportunity to indicate several courts in the application for participation in the court session in the mode of video conference; 8) the requirement to pay a court fee for access to the audio and video recording of a video conference, which is not provided for by law, but is provided for by a bylaw act; 9) the possibility of conducting a case hearing in the absence of a participant who appeared at another court to participate in a video conference, but was unable to participate in it for rea­sons beyond his control.