The dissertation is a comprehensive study of the essence of excessive formalism in administrative proceedings of Ukraine. It identifies its differences from procedural formalism in administrative adjudication, clarifies cases of excessive formalism at the stage of initiating administrative legal proceedings, during case hearing and adoption of a decision by an administrative court, as well as during the review of administrative court decisions. The dissertation also characterizes the interpretation of excessive formalism in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court and formulates proposals aimed at improving the current legislation in this field and its application practices.
It has been established that the existence of procedural formalism in administrative proceedings constitutes a positive element in limiting judicial discretion, ensuring equality of the parties, preventing arbitrariness, guaranteeing effective adjudication within a reasonable time, ensuring access to justice, and promoting legal certainty. Conversely, excessive formalism leads to violations of the principles of judicial proceedings, which is recognized by the European Court of Human Rights as a violation of Article 6 §1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
It has been determined that procedural formalism in administrative proceedings is the condition whereby the participants in judicial proceedings comply with the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine and adhere to the administrative procedural form necessary for the proper administration of justice. Procedural formalism in administrative proceedings in Ukraine is considered through the prism of the obligation of the participants in the proceedings to observe the norms governing administrative adjudication during case hearing and the adoption of a judgment, failure to comply with which results in significant adverse procedural consequences. Procedural formalism manifests itself in the implementation of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine.
It has been proven that excessive formalism in administrative proceedings constitutes strict and mechanical compliance with the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine without regard to their expediency, the circumstances of the case, and contrary to the principle of reasonableness. Excessive formalism consists in the creation of procedural barriers by administrative courts that prevent or impede the proper implementation of procedural law.
It has been demonstrated that excessive formalism may arise in the application of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, including in matters concerning confirmation of receipt by a party of a notice (summons) regarding the hearing of a case; failure to indicate in the statement of claim information regarding attempts at pre-trial settlement of the dispute; calculation of procedural time limits for case hearing; as well as the performance of procedural actions (submission of evidence, claims, complaints, motions, applications, and other documents); the absence of the claimant’s confirmation that no other claim has been filed against the same defendant with the same subject matter and on the same grounds; failure to indicate a preliminary estimate of litigation costs; improper formalization of procedural documents and documents confirming the authority of representatives; payment and calculation of court fees and other litigation costs; determination of jurisdiction, etc.
It has been substantiated that in order to distinguish procedural formalism from excessive formalism in administrative proceedings, it is necessary to identify the defining features of the latter, the principal ones being the following: 1) its derivative nature from procedural formalism; 2) excessively strict adherence to procedures and formal requirements, when courts adopt court decisions based solely on formal aspects of the case and do not give sufficient consideration to the substance or merits of the matter; 3) lack of flexibility in the application of procedural law that hinders access to court and violates the principle of proportionality; 4) predominance of procedure over result, whereby compliance with procedures and formalities becomes more important than achieving substantive justice or practical results; 5) violation of the principles of administrative proceedings.
It has been established that formalism in administrative proceedings during the adjudication of cases contributes to ensuring the predictability of the law, adherence to the principles of the rule of law, justice, access to justice, etc. However, an excessively formal approach to statutory requirements (excessive formalism) may lead to the restriction of these legal principles.
