ВИРІШЕННЯ ПРАВОВИХ СПОРІВ ІЗ ПІДСТАВ ПОРУШЕННЯ ПРАВИЛ ПРЕДМЕТНОЇ ЧИ СУБ’ЄКТНОЇ ЮРИСДИКЦІЇ

Abstract

The article analyzes the origins of the problem of delimitation of judicial jurisdiction at the present stage of law enforcement activities of the Supreme Court. A comparative analysis of certain aspects of the legal regulation of cases on judicial jurisdiction is made by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and the Court of Judicial Jurisdiction (Tribunal des conflits) in France. It is noted that the main difference in resolving disputes over judicial jurisdiction in France is to save time and resources of participants in the trial, the judicial system of the state. Thus, the Court of Judicial Jurisdiction in France reconsiders a case (rather than referring it to a court of first instance) only if the administrative court and the court of general jurisdiction have finally (decisions not subject to appeal) made conflicting decisions, between the same parties, on the same subject matter of the dispute. According to the author, in the event of a dispute over judicial jurisdiction, when courts of different jurisdictions finally (decisions not subject to appeal) made conflicting decisions between the same parties on the same subject matter, the case would have to be much better consequences for the formation of a unified law enforcement practice of delimitation of judicial jurisdiction in Ukraine.

The list of cases given in the CPC, GPC, CAS of Ukraine, when the case is not subject to referral to the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court on the grounds of violation of the rules of substantive or subjective jurisdiction, rather testifies to the legislator's attempt to prevent the negative practice of abuse of procedural rights. On the other hand, this list is controversial, as the party who did not declare, did not substantiate the court's violation of the rules of substantive or subjective jurisdiction could be wrong and such an error should not interfere with resolving a legal dispute over jurisdiction.