The institutes of judge recusal and self-recusal entrenched in the economic procedural legislation are primarily aimed at ensuring that a judge is not preconceived during consideration of a case and a legitimate and fair judgment is passed. At the present stage, the provisions governing the procedure for recusal (self-recusal) of a judge become increasingly important, since they are closely linked to anti-corruption measures which are actively implemented by our State’s leadership. Furthermore, on December 15, 2017 the amended codes of procedure have become effective, in particular the Code of Economic Procedure of Ukraine (hereinafter – CEP of Ukraine), and this necessitates a research into the institute of recusal (self-recusal) of a judge in the context of the mentioned amended Code. The purpose of the article is to provide a scientific understanding and develop a comprehensive view of the institute of judge recusal and self-recusal in economic court proceedings, and also to present the author’s own vision on the prospects of improving statutory legal regulation of these procedural institutes. The article studies the grounds for recusal and self-recusal of a judge in economic court proceedings. Based on the analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, it is noted that the subjective and objective aspects should be distinguished while assessing the impartiality of court. The analysis of national law administration practice demonstrated that the right of a participant in court proceedings to recusal of a judge is not unlimited, since when the motion for recusal of a judge is considered, it should be taken into account whether the overall possibility of proceedings in a respective case remains in the event the motion for recusal is granted. The amended CEP of Ukraine, among other things, stipulates that a knowingly unjustified request for recusal is an abuse of procedural rights. However, the concept of “unjustified” is not explained in the Code, and in this connection the author demonstrates that law administration problems may arise in practice. The institute of judge self-recusal is also a guarantee that a case is considered by an independent and impartial court, however, in contrast to the recusal institute, it is applied only at the initiative of a judge. It is noted that the procedure enshrined in the CEP of Ukraine according to which a judge considers the possibility of self-recusal is imperfect and contains risks for potential abuse by unscrupulous judges, in particular, with the aim of disengagement from “an undesirable case”. In order to avoid such abuses, the author notes that a request for self-removal of a judge should be referred for consideration to another judge, as it is provided for in case a judge disagrees with the stated recusal.

List of legal documents 
 

Legislation 
1. Banhalorski pryntsypy povedinky suddiv [Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct]. URL: http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_j67 (accessed: 20.05.2018) (in Ukrainian). 
2. Konventsiia pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod [Conventi on for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] vid 4 lystopada 1950 r. URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004 (accessed: 20.05.2018) (in Ukrainian). 
3. Mizhnarodnyi pakt pro hromadianski i politychni prava [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] vid 16 hrudnia 1966 r. URL: http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/995_043 (accessed: 20.05.2018) (in Ukrainian). 
4. Hospodarskyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy [Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine]: Zakon Ukrainy [the Law of Ukraine] vid 6 lystopada 1991 r. № 1798-ХII. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 1992. № 6. St. 56 (in Ukrainian). 

Cases 
5. Case of De Cubber v. Belgium (Application no. 9186/80). Judjment. Strasburg, 26 October 1984 accessed 20 May 2018. 
6. Case of Piersack v. Belgium (Application no. 8692/79). Judjment. Strasburg, 1 October 1982 accessed 20 May 2018. 
7. Rishennia Rady suddiv Ukrainy [Decision of the Council of Judges of Ukraine] vid 18 travnia 2018 r. № 24. URL: http://rsu.gov.ua/ua/site/download?doc=L3VwbG9hZH MvZG9jdW1lbnRzL3Jpc2VubmEtcnN1LW5vMjQtdmlkLTE4MDUyMDE4LXNvLnB kZg== (accessed: 12.06.2018) (in Ukrainian). 
8. Ukhvala Odeskoho apeliatsiinoho hospodarskoho sudu [The decision of the Odessa Economic Court of Appeal] vid 25 travnia 2018 r. u sudovii spravi № 916/2024/17. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/74281516 (accessed: 10.06.2018) (in Uk rainian). 
 

Bibliography 
 

Edited books 
9. Novitskiy I і Pereterskiy I, Rimskoye chastnoye pravo: uchebnik [Roman Private Law: Textbook] (Novyy Yurist 1997) (in Russian). 
10. Punev B i Gachev V i dr, Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks. Prilozhen komentar. Problemi na pravoprilaganeto. Analiz na sdebnata praktika [Code of Civil Procedure. Attached comment. Law enforcement issues. Analysis of case – law] (Trud i pravo 2017) (in Bulgarian). 

Journal articles 
11. Bobkova A ta Banasko O, ‘Novely proektu Hospodarskoho protsesualnoho kodeksu Ukrainy’ [‘The Novels Concerning the Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine’] (2017) 9 Pravo Ukrainy 49 (in Ukrainian). 
12. Butyrskyi A, ‘Proekt Hospodarskoho protsesualnoho kodeksu Ukrainy: krok upered chy dva nazad’ [‘Draft Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine: a Step Forward or Two Back’] (2017) 9 Pravo Ukrainy 59 (in Ukrainian). 
13. Chernenko O, ‘Vidvid suddi v hospodarskomu sudochynstvi’ [‘Disqualification of the Judge in the Economic Process’] (2015) 14 Pryvatne pravo i pidpryiemnytstvo. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats 91 (in Ukrainian). 
14. Mishchenko I, ‘Udoskonalennia instytutu vidvodu suddi v hospodarskomu sudochynstvi’ [‘Improvement of the Institute for the Removal of a Judge in Economic Legal Proceedings’] (2017) 9 Pravo Ukrainy 133 (in Ukrainian). 
15. Rieznikova V, ‘Vidpovidalnist u hospodarskomu protsesi za zlovzhyvannia protsesualnymy pravamy ta zakhody protsesualnoho prymusu’ [‘Responsibility in the Economic Process for Abuse of Procedural Rights and Measures of Procedural Coercion’] (2017) 9 Pravo Ukrainy 107 (in Ukrainian). 
16. Vasyleva-Shalamova Z, ‘Vidvid suddi(v) u tsyvilnomu protsesi: deiaki teoretykoprykladni aspekty’ [‘The Removal of a Judge(s) in the Civil Process: Some Theoretical and Applied Aspects’] (2014) 7 Porivnialno-analitychne pravo 67 (in Ukrainian). 

Thesis abstracts 
17. Nikitenko N, ‘Vidvid (samovidvid) v administratyvno-yurysdyktsiinomu protsesi: pytannia teorii ta praktyky’ [‘The Withdraw (Self-dismissal) in the Administrative- Jurisdictional Process: Questions of Theory and Practice’] (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, Zaporizkyi natsionalnyi universytet 2011) (in Ukrainian).