The article highlights some problems pertaining to how the Supreme Court ensures the unity of court practice in modern realities.

The purpose of the study is to identify the threats to modernization of the mechanisms which ensure the unity of court practice; to develop proposals for their improvement and expansion; to define the concept and types of the mechanisms which ensure the unity of court practice in general.

The author shows the importance of ensuring the unity of court practice from the perspective of the European Court of Human Rights. Furthermore, the author critically analyzes the new approaches developed by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court with a view to ensuring the unity of court practice and proves that they are insufficient and have low efficiency in the situation of changingness (where the Supreme Court deviates from its own legal positions on numerous occasions) and a growing plurality of legal positions of the Supreme Court.

The conclusion is made about the need to modernize (improve) the existing mechanisms which ensure the unity of court practice with a view to enhancing their efficiency. The article criticizes the progressive tendency of making the Supreme Court’s legal positions binding (giving them the meaning of a case in precedent) at the legislative level (by making appropriate changes to the procedural codes), and forecasts possible probable threats and negative consequences of such an innovation.

A special focus is given to the concept and signs of a case in precedent and its nature. The author notes that the essence of a case in precedent primarily depends on the legal system within which it has originated and develops. The author also notes a trend to an enhanced role of law.

The article suggests alternative ways to ensuring the unity of court practice in economic court procedure. The concept and types of mechanisms ensuring the unity of court practice in economic court procedure are defined. They are classified by their content and orientation.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Demchenko G, Sudebnyj precedent [A Case in Precedent] (Tip Varsh ucheb okr 1903) (in Russian).

2. Korkunov N, Lekcii po obshhej teorii prava [Lectures on the General Theory of Law] (N K Martynov 1909) (in Russian).

Journal articles

3. Belianevych V, ‘Pro odnakovist sudovoi praktyky’ [‘On the Uniformity of Case Law’] (2002) 2 Yurydychnyi zhurnal 94-6 (in Ukrainian).

4. Drishliuk A, ‘Pro vyznachennia mistsia sudovoho pretsedentu v systemi dzherel tsyvilnoho prava Ukrainy’ [‘On Determining the Place of a Case in Precedent in the System of Sources of Ukrainian Civil Law’] (2005) 3 Universytetski naukovi zapysky 72-5 (in Ukrainian).

5. Popov Yu, ‘Pretsedentne pravo u konteksti zahalnoobov’iazkovosti sudovykh rishen ta ukrainski perspektyvy’ [‘Case Law in the Context of Generally Binding Court Decisions and Ukrainian Perspectives’] (2010) 3 Forum prava 351-3 (in Ukrainian).

6. Rieznikova V, ‘Sudovyi pretsedent: chy vyznano za nym status ofitsiinoho dzherela prava v konteksti reformuvannia hospodarsko-protsesualnoho zakonodavstva Ukrainy’ [‘Judicial Precedent: Has it been Recognized as an Official Source of Law in the Context of Reforming Ukrainian Business Procedural Legislation’] (2012) 1 Visnyk hospodarskoho sudochynstva 90-101 (in Ukrainian).

7. Shatska B, ‘Problematyka zaprovadzhennia sudovoho pretsedentu v Ukraini u konteksti sudovoi reformy’ [‘Issues Pertaining to Introduction of a Case in Precedent in Ukraine in the Judicial Reform Context’] (2010) 4 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 73-6 (in Ukrainian).

8. Vil’njanskij S, ‘K voprosu ob istochnikah sovetskogo prava’ [‘On the Issue of the Sources of Soviet Law’] (1939) 4-5 Problemy socialisticheskogo prava 70 (in Russian).

Websites

9. ‘Kasatsiini filtry, pidsudnist, vidvody, zabezpechennia pozovu: zminy do HPK vid Prezydenta’ [‘Cassation Filters, Jurisdiction, Recusals, Security for a Claim: Amendments to the Code of Economic Procedure by the President’] (Sudovo-iurydychna hazeta, 28.10.2019) <https://sud.ua/ru/news/publication/153368-kasatsiyni-filtri-pidsudnistvidvodizabezpechennya-pozovu-zmini-do-gpk-vid-prezidenta?fbclid=IwAR1RO4c 1Am9fLPYRG2mhDphjtJntTgmCyN1HrlWoWQ81kxtbDq0XDvxgzd0> (accessed: 04.09.2019) (in Ukrainian).

10. ‘Mekhanizmy zabezpechennia yednosti sudovoi praktyky: infohrafika vid suddi VP VS’ [‘Mechanisms to Ensure Case Law Unity: Infographics Provided by a Judge of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court’] (Sudovo-iurydychna hazeta, 20.05.2019) <https://sud.ua/ru/news/sudebnaya-praktika/137889-mekhanizmi-zabezpechennyayednostisudovoyi-praktiki-infografika-vid-suddi-vp-vs> (accessed: 04.09.2019) (in Ukrainian).

11. Kerymov V, ‘Poniatye sudebnoho pretsedenta” [‘The Concept of a Case in Precedent’] (IurKlub, 29.11.2005) <http://yurclub.ru/docs/arbitration/article52.html> (accessed: 04.09.2019) (in Ukrainian).

12. Kibenko O, ‘Novi pidkhody Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu do zabezpechennia yednosti sudovoi praktyky’ [‘New Approaches of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court in Ensuring Case Law Unity’] (Sudovo-iurydychna hazeta, 23.10.2018) <https://sud.ua/ru/news/blog/129294-novi-pidkhodi-velikoyi-palati-verkhovnogosududo-zabezpechennya-yednosti-sudovoyi-praktiki> (accessed: 04.09.2019) (in Ukrainian).