THE RECOVERY OF UKRAINE IN THE FIELD OF JUSTICE: CHALLENGES AND PRIORITY GOALS

Abstract

Background: Currently in Ukraine, a significant objective is to promote the construction of a peaceable and open society, ensuring access to justice for all. Such a system must be effective, accountable, and based on the broad participation of institutions at all levels. This article highlights some of the priority steps in the recovery of the justice system in Ukraine. Special attention is given to the priority goals and problematic aspects of the functioning of the institutions of the national justice system, given the declared aim of forming a sustainable justice system. Current challenges in the field of national justice, priority goals and appropriate measures for their achievement have all been analysed. Methods: To achieve the goals of the research, general and special scientific research methods were applied, such as comparative-legal and semantic-structural methods and the method of grouping, analysis, synthesis, and generalisation. Results and Conclusions: It has been established that the first priority goal of ensuring proper functioning of the judiciary is structural modernisation and optimisation of judicial authorities, including a comprehensive audit of the powers of bodies and institutions of the justice system in order to eliminate duplication of functions and ensure procedures for the effective use of resources. The following were substantiated as risks for achieving such a goal: controversial recognition of the impossibility of the state to be solely responsible for the duration of processes for updating the authorised composition of judicial governance bodies; proposals for the transformation of the system of professional training and professional development of judges; the lack of objective justification for the determination of judicial jurisdiction for the consideration of certain categories of cases; and proposals for recognising the long-term consideration in the parliament of the Draft Law on abolition of the Bar monopoly. Current trends in the development of functions of advocacy in Ukraine have been highlighted, including selective and inconsistent implementation of bar monopoly on representation of another person in court; restriction of the rights of the Bar self-government bodies in the field of forming judicial corps, extension of the state's control powers advocacy; and the search for an optimal model of governance of the advocacy profession. The key challenges of the prosecutor's office, and priority goals and measures for their achievement, have been highlighted. The possible risks of further reform of this institution due to the disputed constitutionality of its personnel, which were reset as a result of previous priority reform measures, have been emphasised, which may call into question the legitimacy of the new staff of the prosecutor's office and does not allow the assertion of the final completion of these processes.