CCR №2 (123) 2018
Self-restraint in the activities of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine

Abstract 
This article discusses the activity of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine at its present stage of development. The doctrine of judicial self-restraint, which was adopted by the Constitutional Court back in the late 1990s, is critically appraised. The main forms of judicial self-restraint that are used in common law countries – primarily in the United States – are examined and relevant court practices are analyzed. The author comes to the conclusion that there is a certain discrepancy between the democratic standards for the administration of justice in the Ukrainian modification of the doctrine of judicial self-restraint. In this connection, the inconsistency and internal contradiction of the latter can be criticized. The paper also makes an attempt to analyze the definitions of the refusal to open proceedings in a case passed by the Constitutional Court in 2017. The slowdown in the pace of the work of the Constitutional Court has been associated with the phenomenon of “strategic escape”, which finds its expression in the activity of the constitutional jurisdiction body mainly due to the fact that the Court refuses to accept the most politically significant cases for consideration and delays – sometimes for years – consideration of those cases that are already underway. Particular attention is paid to the personal composition of the Court and the relationship between judges: it is stated that there are several “small groups”, the social interaction between which is not always free of conflict. In general, the conclusion is made about the crisis that Ukrainian constitutional justice finds itself in today.

About the author 
Oleksandr Yevsieiev – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Scientific Adviser to the Judge, Ukrainian Constitutional Court, Kiev, Ukraine.

Citation
Yevsieiev O. (2018) Samoogranichenie v deyatel’nosti Konstitutsionnogo Suda Ukrainy [Self-restraint in the activities of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.27, no.2, pp.51–67.

References

Abraham H.J. (1993) The Judicial Process, New York: Oxford University Press.

Aloisi R., Meernik J. (2017) Judgment Day, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Andreeva G.M. (2007) Sotsial’naya psikhologiya: Uchebnik [Social psychology: A textbook], Moscow: Aspekt Press. (In Russian).

Barak A. (1999) Sudeyskoe usmotrenie [Judicial discretion], Moscow: Norma. (In Russian).

Baum L. (2013) The Supreme Court, 11th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.

Belknap M.R. (1999) Constitutional Law as Creative Problem Solving: Could the Warren Court Have Ended the Vietnam War? California Western Law Review, vol.36, no.1, pp.99–124.

Belknap M.R. (2005) The Supreme Court under Earl Warren, 1953–1969, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Blokhin P.D. (2014) Konstitutsionnaya zhaloba v Respublike Slovenii s tochki zreniya problemy dostupa k pravosudiyu [Constitutional complaint in the Republic of Slovenia in terms of problems of access to justice]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no.1, pp.138–148. (In Russian).

Brincev V.D. (2015) Sudoviy konstitutsіonalіzm v Ukrainі: doktrina і praktika formuvanniya: u 2 kn. Kn.2[Judicial constitutionalism: the doctrine and formation practice: In two books. Book one], Kharkiv: Pravo. (In Ukrainian).

Crowe J. (2005) Judicial Activism and Restraint. In: Schultz D. (ed.) Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court, New York: Facts on File, pp.237–239.

Dickson B. (2007) Judicial Activism in the House of Lords 1995–2007. In: Dickson B. (ed.) Judicial Activism in Common Law Supreme Courts, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.363–414.

Dmitrieva A.V. (2014) Otbor del v Konstitutsionnom Sude RF: rol’ Sekretariata [Selection of cases in Russian Constitutional Court: the role of the Secretariat], Saint Petersburg: Institut problem pravoprimeneniya pri Evro­peyskom universitete v Sankt-Peterburge. (In Russian).

Goldobina Z.G. (2007) Aktivizm i originalizm v deyatel’nosti Verkhovnogo suda SShA i v amerikanskoy politiko-pravovoy doktrine (istoriko-pravovoy aspekt): Dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Activism and originality in the activities of the Supreme Court of the United States and in the US political and legal doctrine (the historical and legal aspect): Ph.D. dissertation], Ekaterinburg: Ural State Law University. (In Russian).

Grigor’ev I.S. (2017) Strategicheskiy podkhod k sudebnoy politike i sootnoshenie vneshnikh i vnutrisudebnykh institutov v organizatsii sudebnoy vlasti. Politiya, vol.84, no.1, pp.159–174. (In Russian).

Halpern S., Lamb Ch. (eds.) (1982) Supreme Court activism and restraint, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Helmke G. (2005) Courts under Constraints: Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kononov A.L. (1997) Pyatiletie Konstitutsionnogo Suda v Rossii: uroki… [The fifth anniversary of the Russian Constitutional Court: lessons learned…]. Vestnik Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii, no.2, pp.12–20. (In Russian).

Kononov A.L. (2006) Pravo na osoboe mnenie [Right to dissent]. Zakon, no.11, pp.43–46. (In Russian).

Kovler A. (2010) Stsilla i Haribda Evropeyskogo Suda: subsidiarnost’ ili pravovoy aktivizm? [Scilla and Haribda of the European Court of Justice: subsidiarity or legal activism]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no.6, pp.90–100. (In Russian).

Lübbe-Wolff G. (2017) O razlichnykh kul’turakh soveshchaniya sudey v konstitutsionnykh sudakh [Cultures of deliberation in constitutional courts]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no.5, pp.15–29. (In Russian).

Lyubchenko O.O. (2011) Superechlivіst’ pravovih pozicіj Konstitucіjnogo Sudu Ukraїni (na prikladі spravi pro doderzhannya proceduri vnesennya zmіn do Konstitucії Ukraїni) [The Contradictory nature of the legal positions of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court (on the application of the procedure for postponing the insertion of amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine)]. Pravo і suspіl’stvo, no.4, pp.45–49. (In Ukrainian).

Morshchakova T.G. (2003) Samoogranichenie Konstitutsionnogo Suda [Self-limitation of the Constitutional Court]. In: Abova T.E. et al. (eds.) Protsessual’noe pravo: Entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ [Procedural law: encyclopedic dictionary], Moscow: Norma, p.490. (In Russian).

Peretti T. (2009) Politicheskoe tolkovanie prav cheloveka v SShA [Political interpretation of human rights in the United States]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no.6, pp.103–125. (In Russian).

Popova M. (2012) Politizirovannoe pravosudie v novykh demokratiyakh: politicheskaya bor’ba i sudebnaya nezavisimost’ v Rossii i Ukraine [Politicized justice in new democracies: political struggle and judicial independence in Russia and Ukraine]. In: Volkova V.V. (ed.) Kak sud’i prinimayut resheniya: ehmpiricheskie issledovaniya prava [How judges make decisions: empirical research of law], Moscow: Statut, pp.199–223. (In Russian).

Schevchuk S. (2008) Kontseptsіya “suddіvs’kogo aktivіzmu” u kontekstі sudovoї pravotvorchostі [The concept of “juditialactivism” in the context of juditial law-making]. Yuridichniy zhurnal, nos.7–8, pp.54–59. (In Ukrainian).

Smilov D. (2017) Sudeyskoe usmotrenie v konstitutsionnom sudoproizvodstve [Judicial discretion in constitutional adjudication]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, no.2, pp.51–74. (In Russian).

Stevens J.P. (2011) Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir, New York: Back Bay Books.

Stolleis M. (2017) Istoriya publichnogo prava v Germanii: Veymarskaya res­publika i natsional-sotsializm[The history of public law in Germany: the Weimar republic and national socialism], Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Russian).

Strizhak A.A. (ed.) (2009) Zakon Ukraїni “Pro Konstitutsіyniy Sud Ukraїni”: nauk.-prakt. kom. [The Law of Ukraine “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine”: scientific and practical commentary], Kiev: Іn Yure. (In Ukrainian).

Sunstein C.R. (2008) Beyond Judicial Minimalism: University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper, no.237.

Sunstein K. (2017) Mir po “Zvyozdnym voynam” [The World According to “Star Wars”], V.Koposova (trasl.), Moscow: Al’pina Publisher. (In Russian).

Tacіy V., Todika Yu. (2002) Mezhі tlumachennya Konstitucіjnim Sudom Konstitucії і zakonіv Ukraїni [Borders of interpretation of the Constitution and laws of Ukraine by the Constitutional Court]. Vіsnik Konstitucіynogo Sudu Ukraїni, no.2, pp.60–63. (In Ukrainian).

Taler R., Sanstein K. (2017) Poshtovkh [Impetus], Kiev: Nash format. (In Ukrainian).

Thompson D., Wachtell M. (2009) An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General. George Mason Law Review, vol.16, no.2, pp.237–302.

Tushnet M. (2007) Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability: The Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine. In: Mourtada-Sabbah N., Cain B.E. (eds.) The Political Question Doctrine and the Supreme Court of the US. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, pp.47–74.

Yevsieiev A.P. (2014) Verhovnyy Sud Soedinyonnogo Korolevstva: stanovlenie [The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom], Kharkiv: Yurait. (In Russian)

Zor’kin V.D. (2007) Rossiya i Konstitutsiya v XXI veke. Vzglyad s Il’inki [Russia and the constitution in the 21st century. Glance from Ilyinka], Moscow: Norma. (In Russian).

Zor’kin V.D. (2010) Sovremennyy mir, pravo i Konstitutsiya [The modern world, law and the constitution], Moscow: Norma. (In Russian).

Issue articles