COMPETENCE OF SPECIALIZED ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS IN UKRAINE

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published: Dec 31, 2025

  Anna Barikova

Abstract

The purpose of the paper is a comprehensive research of the institutional, legal and methodological principles of the functioning of higher specialized administrative courts in Ukraine in the context of judicial reform and European integration processes. The feasibility of creating such courts has been substantiated, which is due to both the internal needs for improving the judicial system and the international obligations of the state in accordance with the Ukraine Facility plan. It has been proved that higher specialized administrative courts are an important element in ensuring the rule of law, protecting human rights and forming the unity of judicial practice. The feasibility of transferring part of the atypical powers of the Supreme Court to specialized administrative courts has been indicated in order to optimize the workload and increase the efficiency of considering public – law disputes. Special attention has been paid to judicial discretion as a mechanism for flexible application of law and unification of judicial practice. The role of the ratio decidendi principle in forming precedents and ensuring the predictability of legal decisions has been highlighted. The research has used systemic, institutional, analytical and logical methods: the systemic approach has allowed to determine the place of specialized courts in the general structure of the judicial system, the institutional approach – to identify the differences between the previous and new models of the organization of administrative justice, the analytical approach – to investigate legislative initiatives and issues of competence delimitation, the logical approach – ensured the consistency of argumentation and conclusions. The prospects for further research are in the comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the activities of specialized administrative courts according to the continental and anglo-american models, the assessment of the impact of judicial discretion on the stability of law enforcement, the research of the risks of corruption and the search for mechanisms to minimize them, as well as in the study of the interaction of specialized courts with other judicial authorities.

How to Cite

Barikova, A. (2025). COMPETENCE OF SPECIALIZED ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS IN UKRAINE. Academia Polonica, 72(5), 126-133. https://doi.org/10.23856/7214
Article views: 1 | PDF Downloads: 1

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

judicial reform, justice, administrative jurisdiction, prospective legal precedent, judicial discretion

References
1. Antypova, I. (2021). Administratyvno-pravovyi status vyshchykh spetsializovanykh sudiv v Ukraini [Administrative and legal status of higher specialized courts in Ukraine]. (PhD Thesis), Kyiv. [in Ukrainian]
2. Bevzenko, V.; Panova, H. (2018). Sutnist ta pidstavy vtruchannia administratyvnoho sudu u rozsud sub’iekta publichnoi administratsii [The essence and grounds for the administrative court’s intervention in the discretion of a public administration entity]. Kyiv: Dakor. [in Ukrainian]
3. Brownsword, R. (2025). Five conversations and new directions for law and technology. Law, Innovation and Technology, 17 (1), 37–57. doi: 10.1080/17579961.2025.2469342.
4. Chumak, V. (2020). Rol i mistse vyshchykh spetsializovanykh sudiv u systemi sudoustroiu Ukrainy [The role and place of higher specialized courts in the judicial system of Ukraine]. Bulletin of Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs, 2 (89), 250–257. doi: 10.32631/v.2020.2.23. [in Ukrainian]
5. Gonçalves, A. (2022). International jurisdiction in cross-border infringement of personality rights in the European Union. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 16 (2), 125–142. doi: 10.5817/MUJLT2022-2-1.
6. Panova, H. (2017). Vtruchannia administratyvnoho sudu v rozsud sub’iekta publichnoi administratsii: sutnist ta pidstavy [Intervention of an administrative court in the discretion of a public administration entity: essence and grounds]. (PhD Thesis), Zaporizhzhia. [in Ukrainian]
7. Pečarič, M. (2021). Lex ex machina: reasons for algorithmic regulation. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 15 (1), 85–117. doi: 10.5817/MUJLT2021-1-4.
8. Prince Tritto, P.; Torres Ortega, I. (2025). Jurists of the gaps: large language models and the quiet erosion of legal authority. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 19 (2), 179–204. doi: 10.5817/MUJLT2025-2-4.
9. Razmetaeva, Y.; Satokhina, N. (2022). AI-based decisions and disappearance of law. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 16 (2), 241–267. doi: 10.5817/MUJLT2022-2-5.
10. Soukupová, J. (2021). AI-based legal technology: a critical assessment of the current use of artificial intelligence in legal practice. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 15 (2), 279–300. A doi: 10.5817/MUJLT2021-2-6.
11. Stepanenko, V. (2019). Yurydychni ta moralni zasady sudovoi dyskretsii (sudovoho rozsudu) [Legal and moral foundations of judicial discretion (judicial latitude)]. Law Bulletin, 9, 83–91. doi: 10.32850/2414-4207.2019-9.11. [in Ukrainian]