The issues relating to the attribution of a doctrine to sources of law gain increasing attention of scholars and practitioners. Recently, the issues of a judicial doctrine and its place in the law administration environment are of a particular interest, and this is due, in particular, to the variability of procedural law and the changing role of a judicial doctrine in the context of application of legal provisions. Despite a large number of works focused on various aspects of legal doctrine, it should be stated that this issue is still very insufficiently researched. And since the available studies were made prior to the adoption of new procedural codes, they are not based on the updated procedural law. As a result, there are still unresolved issues of defining the concept of judicial doctrine in the restated Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of Ukraine (hereinafter – CAJP of Ukraine) as well as those of determining the meaning of the phrase “taking into account the opinion” of the Supreme Court in the context of article 242 of the said Code, and etc. The aim of this article is to study the concept of judicial doctrine in the administrative process and its place in the system of sources of law, and also to find out how the judicial doctrine correlates with rulings of the Supreme Court, to determine the conditions for the application by courts of article 242 of the CAJP of Ukraine and to formulate the proposals for the need of reconsidering some opinions of the Ukrainian Supreme Court (hereinafter – USC) in specific cases. The authors have established that judicial doctrine in the context of administrative process refers to the opinions about the application of legal provisions as set forth in the rulings of the Supreme Court. They should not be confused with a casual interpretation of law contained in the rulings of the Supreme Court. Lower level courts should not take into account the opinions of the Supreme Court literally, but should pay due attention to their hierarchy in the system of sources of law, as well as to particular circumstances of a case. These opinions do not change or cancel, but rather supplement the current legal framework, and therefore, courts may not use them in the event of any inconsistency with law and the rule of law principle. Presently there is a need for reconsideration of some opinions of the USC in specific cases which are perceived (sometimes absolutely without any reason) by courts as judicial doctrines. In particular, these are cases involving incompatibility of the status of a fake illegal enterprise with legitimate business activities; and also cases for invalidation of unreliable data entered into tax authorities’ databases and withdrawal of relevant information therefrom; as well as cases for ascertaining of legitimate business activities and the status of primary documents when their signatory denies his/her signature; and also for budgetary compensation of value added tax; and for the need of land tax payment by owners of apartment houses. Therefore, when making decisions it is necessary to distinguish a causal interpretation of legal provisions and rulings of the Supreme Court from the opinions stated therein. Courts should be aware of the need to use the latter not literally, but with due regard for the specific circumstances of the case and the hierarchy in the system of sources of law.

List of legal documents

Legislation

1. Banhalorski pryntsypy povedinky suddiv [Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct] vid 19 travnia 2006 r.: skhvaleno rezoliutsiieiu Ekonomichnoi ta Sotsialnoi rady OON vid 27 lypnia 2006 r. № 2006/23. URL: http://zakon 2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_j67 (accessed: 05.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

2. Kodeks administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy [The Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of Ukraine]: Zakon Ukrainy [Law of Ukraine] vid 6 lypnia 2005 r. № 2747-IV. URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2747-15/ed20170803 (accessed: 05.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

3. Kodeks administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy [The Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of Ukraine]: Zakon Ukrainy [Law of Ukraine] vid 6 lypnia 2005 r. № 2747-IV (v redaktsii Zakonu Ukrainy [As Amended by the Law of Ukraine] vid 3 zhovtnia 2017 r. № 2147-VIII). URL: http://zakon0.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2747-15 (accessed: 05.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

4. Konventsiia pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod [Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] vid 4 lystopada 1950 r.: ratyfikovana Zakonom Ukrainy [Ratified by the Law of Ukraine] vid 17 lypnia 1997 r. № 475/97-VR. URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004 (accessed: 05.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

5. Podatkovyi kodeks Ukrainy [Tax Code of Ukraine]: Zakon Ukrainy [Law of Ukraine] vid 2 hrudnia 2010 r. № 2755-VI. URL: http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2755-17 (accessed: 06.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

 6. Pro dostup do publichnoi informatsii [On Access to Public Information]: Zakon Ukrainy [Law of Ukraine] vid 13 sichnia 2011 r. № 2939-VI. URL: http://zakon2.rada. gov.ua/laws/show/2939-17 (accessed: 07.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

Cases

7. Bulves AD v Bulgaria App no 3991/03 (ECtHR, 22 January 2009) (in English).

8. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy [Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine] vid 11 lystopada 2015 r. u spravi № 826/15842/14. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov. ua/Review/55253181 (accessed: 07.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

9. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy [Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine] vid 12 sichnia 2016 r. u spravi № 826/20548/13-a. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov. ua/Review/55903403 (accessed: 06.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

10. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy [Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine] vid 2 hrudnia 2015 r. u spravi № 21-3517a15. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/ Review/54688828 (accessed: 15.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

11. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy [Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine] vid 20 sichnia 2016 r. u spravi № 826/16932/13-a. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov. ua/Review/55476509 (accessed: 09.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

12. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy [Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine] vid 25 chervnia 2017 r. u spravi № 826/18700/15. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov. ua/Review/68167186 (accessed: 08.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

13. Shchodo odnakovoho zastosuvannia administratyvnymy sudamy okremykh prypysiv Podatkovoho kodeksu Ukrainy ta Kodeksu administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy [On the Consistent Application by Administrative Courts of Separate Provisions of Ukraine’s Tax Code and the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure of Ukraine]: lyst Vyshchoho administratyvnoho sudu Ukrainy holovam apeliatsiinykh administratyvnykh sudiv [Letter of the High Administrative Court of Ukraine to Chairmen of Administrative Courts of Appeal] vid 2 chervnia 2011 r. № 742/11/13-11. URL: http://zakon2.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0742760-11 (accessed: 08.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

14. Ukhvala Vyshchoho administratyvnoho sudu Ukrainy [Ruling of the High Administrative Court of Ukraine] vid 4 liutoho 2016 r. u spravi № K/800/44985/15. URL: http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/55661009 (accessed: 14.02.2018) (in Ukrainian).

Bibliography

Dictionaries

15. Duhaimes Law Dictionary <http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/D/Doctrine. aspx> accessed 6 February 2018 (in English).

Journal articles

16. Baker Philip, ‘Taxation and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2000) 40 (8) IBFD “European Taxation” 298 (in English).

17. Tiller Emerson H and Cross Frank B, ‘What is Legal Doctrine?’ (2006) 100 (1) Northwestern University Law Review 517 (in English).

18. ‘Delo Brauna: Bor’ba za otmenu rasovoj segregacii v shkolah SShA (vospominanija Dzheka Grinberga)’ [‘Brown’s Case: Struggling to Eliminate Racial Segregation in USA schools (Jack Greenberg’s Memoirs)’] (2005) Voprosy demokratii 24 (in Russian).

19. Poljanskij Dmitrij i Puzikov Ruslan, ‘Pravovaja doktrina kak osoboe pravovoe javlenie’ [‘Legal Doctrine as a Special Legal Phenomenon’] (2013) 11 Vestnik tambovskogo universiteta Gumanitarnye nauki 328 (in Russian).

20. Popov Oleksandr, ‘Pravova doktryna ta yii zastosuvannia Verkhovnym Sudom Ukrainy pry perehliadi sudovykh rishen u tsyvilnykh spravakh’ [‘Legal Doctrine and its Application by the Supreme Court of Ukraine When Reviewing Court Decisions in Civil Cases’] (2016) 132 Problemy zakonnosti 83 (in Ukrainian).

21. Stepanov D, ‘Voprosy metodologii civilisticheskoj doktriny’ [‘Methodological Issues of Civil Doctrine’] (2003) 6 Aktual’nye problemy grazhdanskogo prava 1 (in Russian).

22. Tertyshnyk V, ‘Doktryna ta problemy i ryzyky konstytutsiinoi y sudovo-pravovoi reformy v Ukraini’ [‘Doctrine, Challenges and Risks of the Constitutional and Judicial Legal Reform in Ukraine’] (2016) 4 Suspilno politychni protsesy 147 (in Ukrainian).

23. Vasyliev S, ‘Pravova doktryna – dzherelo protsesualnoho prava’ [‘Legal Doctrine – the Source of Procedural Law’] (2012) 2 Aktualni pytannia innovatsiinoho rozvytku 70 (in Ukrainian).

24. Yevhrafova Ye, ‘Doktryna u pravovii nautsi i yurydychnii praktytsi’ [‘Doctrine in the Science of Law and Legal Practice’] (2013) 2 Visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy 52 (in Ukrainian).

25. Zadorozhnyi Yu, ‘Pravova doktryna v krainakh romano-hermanskoi ta anhlo-amerykanskoi pravovykh simei: porivnialnyi analiz’ [‘Legal Doctrine in the Countries of Romano-Germanic and Anglo-American Legal Systems: Comparative Analysis’] (2012) 10 Biuleten Ministerstva yustytsii Ukrainy 17 (in Ukrainian).

Dissertations

26. Karmalita Mariia, ‘Pravova doktryna – dzherelo (forma) prava’ [‘Legal Doctrine –

the Source (Form) of Law’] (dys kand yuryd nauk, Kyivskyi natsionalnyi universytet

imeni Tarasa Shevchenka 2011) (in Ukrainian).