Based on a systematic analysis of current administrative legislation, the practice of judicial administration representatives, and scientific doctrine, the Thesis characterizes the peculiarities of the implementation of measures to ensure proper conditions for the court’s activities by the head of the court apparatus, determines their compliance with the current stage of state building in Ukraine, and formulates conceptual principles and practical recommendations for modernizing administrative and legal regulation in this area.
The first section of the study reveals the theoretical and legal foundations, organizational features, and regulatory basis of the activities of the head of the court apparatus in ensuring proper conditions for the court’s functioning.
The second section of the work is devoted to highlighting the essence of the legal nature of the administrative and legal status of the head of the court apparatus, the forms and methods of his/her activities regarding the organization of proper conditions for the functioning of the court, the peculiarities of the practical implementation of certain areas of such activities, as well as the legal, organizational, and procedural aspects of his/her interaction with other entities in this area.
The last section reveals the specifics of existing mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the head of the court apparatus, as well as scientifically based directions for improving administrative and legal regulation to increase the effectiveness of his/her management activities and ensure the proper functioning of the court. These include: 1) regulatory (for example, a legislative solution to the problem of defining the essence of the court apparatus from a terminological standpoint of view; regulatory fixation of the mechanism for preliminary verification of candidates for the position of the head of the court apparatus); 2) financial and material and technical support (for example, expanding the range of tasks for which the judiciary is funded within the powers established by law to ensure access to justice for everyone); 3) transformational (i.e., increasing the flexibility of remote court work, which involves simplifying bureaucratic procedures for the transfer of judges and changes to their jurisdiction in emergency situations; granting the head of the court apparatus broader powers to make operational changes to the internal organizational structure of the court); 4) communication (strengthening departmental, interdepartmental, and internal cooperation with the participation of the head of the court administration, establishing dialogue with citizens); 5) personnel (updating approaches to the selection, training, professional development, and career advancement of court administration employees, improving mechanisms for their certification and performance evaluation); 6) control and supervision (for example, establishing mechanisms for holding the head of the court apparatus liable for systematic improper performance of duties related to creating appropriate conditions for the court’s activities).
