Savytska N. Internal Independence of the Judge of the Administrative Court as a Principle of Administering Administrative Justice in Ukraine

It is argued that independence is a fundamental principle and value of the judicial system and a measure of its effectiveness. The function of independence stems from the separation of powers within the state branches to protect citizens in disputes with the state. However, the emphasis on independence also arises from the essence of the existence of the judicial power to fairly resolve any conflicts in conditions of predominant confrontation. It is emphasised that one of the most important indicators of building a rule of law state is the presence of an independent judicial system. In a democratic rule of law state, only the judiciary can conclusively resolve legal conflicts. However, it can fulfil its purpose only when it is truly independent, impartial, and accessible to everyone, and the entrenchment of rights and freedoms in legislative acts is unambiguous, clear, precise, systematic, and accessible to all. The proposal is made to distinguish between two types of judicial independence: external independence (independence from other branches of power, officials, and persons in positions of authority, independence from political forces, and the judge’s beliefs) and internal independence (independence from conflicts of interest, independence from the court president and other influential judges, court staff). A definition of the internal independence of judges of the administrative court of Ukraine is provided. It is proposed to understand this as the ability of judges to perform their duties properly, including independently and impartially deciding each case on its merits, without the influence or undue control from the court president, other judges, court staff, or participants in the judicial process. It is substantiated that the disregard for judicial independence inevitably leads to a violation of the principle of rendering decisions by a judge based on internal conviction. Due to the possibility of undue influence, the internal convictions and ideals of a judge can be situational or systematically subjected to external pressure, gradually causing their distortion.