ORGANIZATION OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER MARTIAL LAW: LEGAL FRAMEWORK, DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN UKRAINE

Abstract

The article is devoted to a comprehensive study of the legal framework and organizational-legal mechanisms for the administration of justice in Ukraine under martial law imposed as a result of the full-scale armed aggression of the Russian Federation. The relevance of the study is determined by the need to ensure the continuity of the judicial system and the realization of the constitutional right to judicial protection under emergency conditions, when a significant part of the courts found themselves in temporarily occupied territories or in the zone of active hostilities. The purpose of the article is to clarify the administrative-legal and procedural principles of organizing judicial proceedings during martial law, to identify their advantages and disadvantages, and to formulate proposals for improving legal regulation. The study applies formal-legal, comparative-legal and systemicstructural methods of scientific cognition. Results. The constitutional guarantees of the right to judicial protection, provisions of the Law of Ukraine «On the Legal Regime of Martial Law», procedural codes and the practice of their application in wartime conditions are analyzed. Special attention is paid to mechanisms for changing territorial jurisdiction of court cases, recommendations of the High Council of Justice and the Supreme Court on organizing court operations, and digital transformation of justice. It has been established that the key tools for ensuring continuity of justice were: changing territorial jurisdiction of cases in accordance with Article 147 of the Law «On the Judiciary and Status of Judges»; expanding the use of electronic court and videoconferencing; differentiation of cases by urgency criterion; creating conditions for remote participation in court hearings using participants’ own technical means. It is proven that digitalization of justice has become a critically important factor in maintaining access to justice for internally displaced persons, residents of frontline territories and other vulnerable groups. At the same time, systemic problems have been identified: uneven technical equipment of courts, inequality of citizens’ access to digital services, overload of certain courts, insufficient legal certainty of remote procedures. Conclusions. The conclusion is formulated about the necessity of further legislative improvement of mechanisms for organizing judicial proceedings under emergency legal regimes for full implementation of fair trial standards defined by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Constitution of Ukraine.