In the dissertation the complex research of the co-defendant in administrative process (procedural co-participation) is carried out. The dissertation is a complex theoretical study of the legal status of the co-defendant in the administrative process and substantiation of the nature, essence of this category and the manifestation of its applied aspect. The methodological basis of the dissertation research is substantiated, separate methods, principles and approaches of scientific cognition which have been used for opening of this theme are defined.
It is stated that the formation of the procedural status of the parties in administrative proceedings took place on the basis of synthesizing the principles of adversarial and elements of the search process.
The expediency of separating three periods of theoretical elaboration of the procedural status of the parties to administrative proceedings is substantiated: 1) formation of the status of participants in the classic adversarial court process, built on the principles of absolute equality before the court; 2) substantiation of the peculiarities of the procedural status of the parties – participants in public law disputes both in court proceedings and in out-of-court proceedings; 3) construction of a special procedural status of the parties to administrative proceedings on the basis of a combination of adversarial principles and official clarification of the circumstances of the case.
The author's understanding of procedural complicity as a special procedural institution arising from a homogeneous legal relationship is given, if the rights, interests or responsibilities of participants in administrative proceedings do not exclude each other, the application of which provides effective consideration and resolution of the case, acceleration and simplification. Cases of opposing decisions on homogeneous lawsuits. The actual existence of this institution in administrative proceedings is confirmed by the possibility of combining identical claims, so the CAS of Ukraine should determine the procedure for its use, as well as to provide among the persons involved in the case, co-plaintiffs and co-defendants, determining their procedural status.
It is proved that the procedural complicity of administrative cases is an independent institution of administrative proceedings, which determines the competence of a particular administrative court or courts to resolve, consider and differentiate subordinate groups (categories) of administrative cases. The peculiarities of the institute of procedural complicity of administrative cases are determined.
It is emphasized that the construction of the system of administrative courts depends on the established rules of instance and substantive jurisdiction. The CAS of Ukraine has established a set of norms that create the administrative and legal basis for instance and substantive jurisdiction of administrative cases. Legal norms regulate these types of jurisdiction, filled with different content and establish general and special rules, according to which there is a division of cases between administrative courts, which are part of the judicial system of Ukraine.
It was found that the procedural complicity of administrative cases is a set of rules that will determine the division of competence of administrative courts vertically to hear administrative cases in the first instance depending on the subject of public law dispute and the subject composition of the participants. Substantive procedural complicity of administrative cases is realized when filing an administrative lawsuit in the court of first instance, which is competent to consider and resolve a public law dispute on the merits. Subject jurisdiction determines the competence of courts of different parts of the judicial system of courts of administrative jurisdiction. The purpose of the jurisdiction of administrative cases is to determine and delimit the powers of all administrative courts to decide an administrative case as a court of first instance, as well as to define the jurisdiction of a particular case (category of cases), ie to determine which administrative court is obliged to consider the case in the first instance.
It is emphasized that in the CAS of Ukraine it is necessary to clearly define the procedural complicity, so that the interested person does not have difficulties in determining the appropriate administrative court to consider his administrative claim. It should also be provided that administrative courts have jurisdiction over all public law disputes, except those that are legally resolved by other courts. It is emphasized that such a provision, rather than determining jurisdiction by establishing confusion in the CAS of Ukraine due to uncertainty and detail of categories of cases, will avoid situations where courts of different instances simultaneously resolve public disputes or refuse to resolve certain cases due to lack of jurisdiction.
