Qualifying scientific paper based on rights of a manuscript. PhD dissertation in specialty 081–Law. – National University “Odesa Law Academy”, Odesa, 2021.
The dissertation is the first in the domestic science of civil procedural law special complex research of theoretical and practical features of the order of court decision making.
The dissertation highlights structural elements of the mechanism of court decision-making in civil proceedings as a special type of law enforcement activity, which include: the subject of decision-making activity, which has a certain range of powers; object of court decision; the purpose of the court decision; grounds for court decision; stages of court decision-making.
Main functions of the jury institute are determined, among which are: 1) political ones, which is aimed at complying with requirements of the Constitution of Ukraine regarding participation of people in administration of justice; 2) law-making – under participation of juries, people create a precedent (in countries of the Anglo- American legal system) or form a certain judicial practice by passing a court decision; 3) promoting conciliation, which is present in the Anglo-American system, the essence of which is the ability of the parties to resolve the dispute before referring the case to a jury, knowing how such cases are usually decided by a jury; 4) increasing the level of trust in the judiciary as a result of participation in the case of non-professional judges – representatives of people; 5) raising the legal awareness of citizens, if the jury is involved in the case; they will have a much better understanding of the rules of substantive and procedural law in force in such a state; 6) legitimacy of court decisions.
It is proposed to provide individual consideration of certain categories of cases in the court of appeal, in particular: appeals against decisions that may be appealed separately from the court decision.
The need to ensure the secrecy of the meeting of judges instead of the secrecy of the deliberation room, i. e. those discussions that take place outside the deliberation room and during preparation of draft court decisions, individual opinions. The presence of the institution of a dissenting opinion indicates the possibility of parallel discussion of several draft court decisions, several alternative versions of dissenting opinions: such discussions may take place outside the
deliberation room if the court has announced the introductory and the operative parts. It should be possible to discuss the text of the judgment not only within the board, but also between the Judge-Rapporteur and his assistant. It is obvious that during preparation of the draft court decision, the assistant judge receives certain instructions from the judge regarding his vision of reasoning for the court decision, and therefore, in fact, such actions can be regarded as a forced violation of the secrecy of the deliberation room or arguments made by other judges. When drafting dissenting opinions, the judge who entrusts the drafting of his/her draft to the assistant may not give full guidance without stating provisions of the judgment that were supported by the majority.
There are cases when adoption of a dissenting opinion of a judge is mandatory for a member of the board who disagrees with the main text of the decision in a civil case.
Scientific provisions, that court decisions, in particular rulings, will be divided into oral (verbal/protocol) and written ones, have been improved. It is clarified that the protocol rulings are not in writing due to their inclusion in the minutes of the court session, as the secretary of the court session cannot accurately reflect the court's motives for the decision, court conclusions and other important content of the court decision.
