The right to remove a court (judge) in civil procedure: problems

Abstract

In the article, it is seen as the result of a lack of superiority to the court, as an invisible element of the world of the implementation of the task of a fair trial. And even the irresponsible and irreproachable review and execution of judicial certificates is one of the head obsessions of the skin court, as well as the warehouse part of the oath of the court, which is violated, which is to be confessed, especially, which is the responsibility of the judge, which can sue the whole side of the bulk.
 The article is dedicated to the importance of bringing judges to the civil process, to the problems of this institution. It is significant that in the European Court of People’s Rights, a many years practice is directed to stating that the national court, looking at the specific right, is out of any side and is objective in the case of paragraph 1 of Art. 6 of the Convention on the defense of human rights and fundamental freedoms. So, paragraph 1 of Art. 6 of the Convention needs that “court” which is under it’s power should be unprepared.
 The article analyzes the problem of bringing judges to the conclusion that the problem of bringing others to light is presented in the light of the practice of other judges. For example, European Court in it’s decisions conduct difference between objective way of solving (it’s decision which tells have powerful guarantees been given to judge to except valuable doubts for any case) and subjective way of solving (which means the intend of be sure in subjective accusation or personal interest of the judge in the case.
 At the article there are analyzed examples of cases in which can arise doubt at lack of objectivity of the court. For example, one person do a lot of functions through the court process or hierarchical or another links between this and another person through the same process. It has it’s own character and is the result of judge’s behavior in that case.
 On the basis of the analysis carried out that the legislation of Ukraine in the field of disqualification is uncomplete and requires editing. The realization of the right to a fair, unprejudiced and independent court by a way to the court’s decision may not be done in practice, the proofing of evidence and facts, necessary for the court’s disqualification, must be dealt with in a folding aspect.
 So, at whom it was necessary to demonstrate the consistency of the evidence brought by the evidence and the facts necessary for the conclusion of the court, analyzing the deeds of the decision of the court. It is necessary to proposition that the norms of national legislation should be fully developed, and that it should be brought up to international standards.