ASSESSMENT OF COURT DECISIONS BY THE HIGH COUNCIL OF JUSTICE

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to substantiate the position that the High Council of Justice, in order to fulfil its powers, is obliged to assess court decisions. Methods. The methodological basis of the study is formed by general scientific and special legal methods, in particular, dialectical, systemic analysis, and theoretical generalization. Results. The author touches upon one of the most controversial issues of disciplinary liability of judges – assessment of court decisions by a disciplinary body. It is stated that the current grounds for disciplinary liability of judges in Ukraine relate to the content of court decisions, and the authors of the article call on the legal community to call a spade a spade and recognize that the High Council of Justice is obliged to evaluate court decisions in order to fulfil its powers. If there are intentional violations, international standards of disciplinary liability of judges do not prohibit the disciplinary body from holding judges accountable for making unreasonable and illegal decisions. The analysis of the legislation of the European Union and the disciplinary practice of the state of Georgia (USA) shows that the partner countries, like Ukraine, provide in their domestic legislation the grounds for disciplinary liability of judges that necessitate the assessment of a court decision. Conclusions. It is proposed that the national procedural legislation should provide for such a ground for reviewing a case based on newly discovered circumstances as a decision of the High Council of Justice to bring a judge to disciplinary liability for committing a disciplinary offense during the consideration of a court case. The current state of affairs in the judicial system and the level of trust in it indicate that violations of substantive and procedural law by a judge should be among the grounds for disciplinary liability, and the disciplinary body should assess such violations. The High Council of Justice should act as another lever of checks and balances between society, the judiciary and other branches of government. The author recommends that the High Council of Justice should not use in its procedural documents the contradictory statements that the High Council of Justice “does not assess a court decision but assesses the manner in which the judge acted”, “does not assess a court decision but assesses the judge’s behaviour during its delivery”, “does not assess a court decision but assesses whether the judge took all the necessary actions for the correct application of the rule of law”, “is not authorized to re-evaluate a court decision”.