In recent years, scientific community of procedural scholars of Ukraine has a lively scientific discussion in the on the question: is judicial practice in general and the opinions of the Supreme Court in particular a source of law? If such practice and opinions of the Supreme Court as a result of judicial law-making are not a source of law, then what is their essence from a legal point of view?

On January 15, 2020, the legislator amended the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – the CPC of Ukraine), in which the issue of judicial practice against a background of binding opinions of the Supreme Court becomes critical, because now we need to clarify whether we remain in the realm of continental law, where law enforcement is carried out in accordance with the content of law, or yet justice in our country goes to the realm of common law, where only the Supreme Court has the ability to go beyond the direct content of law and its opinions (legal opinions) are essentially binding on lower courts

As the judicial practice and opinions (legal opinions) of the Supreme Court today have significantly increased their influence on trial of evidence as a component of justice, there is a need for a deeper scientific study of these conceptual ideas from both doctrinal and procedural points of view, in order to further develop civil procedural law of our state.

The aim of this article is to study the theoretical and applied aspects of judicial practice and opinions of the Supreme Court in terms of their possibility to be recognized as sources of law and to become a basis for establishing of case law in Ukraine.

First of all, we must say that the concept of “judicial practice” is a general concept, and therefore multidisciplinary, which led to the use of methods of systems analysis and a systematic approach to its study in the historical past and present. The concept of “judicial law-making” is a complex concept from the point of view of our study, as it is both a judicial practice and an individualized opinion of the Supreme Court, which the legislator has made binding. So, we have both general and specific insight and understanding of current trends in the development of civil procedural law.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Van Caendem R, An Historical Introduction to Private Law (Cambridge 1992) (in English).

2. Abramov S, Sovetskyi hrazhdanskyi process (Gosjurizdat 1952) (in Russian).

3. Bogdanovskaja I, Precedentnoe pravo (Nauka 1993) (in Russian).

4. Korkunov N, Lektsyy po obshchei teoryy prava (Juridicheskij prescentr 2003) (in Russian).

5. Malysheva B, Sudovyi pretsedent u pravovii systemi Anhlii (Praksis 2008) (in Ukrainian).

6. Parkhomenko N, Dzherela prava: problemy teorii ta metodolohii (Yurydychna Dumka 2008) (in Ukrainian).

7. Vaskovskyi E, Tsyvylystycheskaia metodolohyia: uchenye o tolkovanyy prymenenyia hrazhdanskykh zakonov (Jurinfor 2002) (in Russian).

8. Vlasova T, Precedentnoe pravo Anglii (PGU 2004) (in Russian).

Edited books

9. Bratus S (red), Sudebnaia praktyka v sovetskoi pravovoi systeme (Yurydycheskaia Lyteratura 1975) (in Russian).

10. Lenin V, ‘O zadachah Narkomjusta v uslovijah novoj jekonomicheskoj politiki. Pis’mo D. I. Kurskomu. [20 fev ralja 1922 g.]’ v Lenin V, Polnoe sobranie sochinenij, t 44 (5-e izd, 1977) (in Russian).

11. Yudelson K (red), Sovetskoe hrazhdanskoe protsessualnoe parvo: uchebnik (Yurydycheskaia Lyteratura 1965) (in Russian).

12. Yasynok D, ‘Problemni pytannia na shliakhu vyznannia sudovoho pretsedentu dzherelom protsesualnoho prava’ v Aktualni problemy prav liudyny, derzhavy ta vitchyznianoi pravovoi systemy: materialy mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii (Pravovyi svit 2018) (in Ukrainian).

13. Yasynok M (red), Tsyvilne protsesualne pravo Ukrainy: pidruchnyk (Alerta 2016)(in Ukrainian).

14. Yasynok M, ‘Vvedennia v pretsedentne pravo Ukrainy’ v Yasynok M (zah red), Teoretychni problemy tsyvilnoho protsesualnoho prava: pidruchnyk (Alerta 2016) (in Ukrainian).

15. Yasynok M, ‘Protsesualno-pravovyi mekhanizm sudovykh pretsedentiv’ v Yasynok M (zah red), Teoretychni problemy tsyvilnoho protsesualnoho prava: pidruchnyk (Alerta 2016) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

16. ‘Sudova reforma v Ukraini: yevropeiskyi vektor (Mizhnarodnyi sudovo-pravovyi forum)’ (2015) 4 Visnyk Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy 4 (in Ukrainian).

17. Boiko I, ‘Suchasna teoriia sutnosti ta klasyfikatsii sudovykh pretsedentiv orhaniv mizhnarodnoho pravosuddia’ (2019) 2 Porivnialno-analitychne pravo 267 (in Ukrainian).

18. Dashkovska O, ‘Sudovyi pretsedent i sudova praktyka yak dzherela prava’ (2011) 1 Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy 35 (in Ukrainian).

19. Drishliuk A, ‘Sudovyi pretsedent yak dzherelo prava ta yoho vydy’ (2006) 28 Aktualni problemy polityky 141–50 (in Ukrainian).

20. Koziubra M, ‘Sudova pravotvorchist: anomaliia chy imanentna vlastyvist pravosuddia’ (2016) 10 Pravo Ukrainy 38 (in Ukrainian).

21. Lylak D, ‘Sudochynstvo i problemy suddivskoi pravotvorchosti’ (2003) 3 Visnyk Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy 63 (in Ukrainian).

22. Maidanyk R, ‘Pretsedentni rishennia vyshchykh sudiv i systema prava Ukrainy’ (2009) 4 Yurydychnyi visnyk Ukrainy 7–11 (in Ukrainian).

23. Melnyk A, ‘Sudovyi pretsedent yak dzherelo protsesualnoho prava’ (2014) 8 Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu 28–31 (in Ukrainian).

 24. Mihashko V, ‘Vplyv praktyky Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny na rozvytok sudovoi praktyky v Ukraini’ [2019] 2 (1) Molodyi vchenyi 184–8 (in Ukrainian).

25. Popov Yu, ‘Pretsedentne pravo u konteksti zahalnoobov’iazkovosti sudovykh rishen ta ukrainski perspektyvy’ (2010) 3 Forum prava 351 (in Ukrainian).

26. Romaniuk Ya, ‘Sudova pravotvorchist v umovakh reformuvannia pravosuddia: rol Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy’ (2016) 12 Visnyk Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy 2–14 (in Ukrainian).

27. Stetsyk N, ‘Pretsedentna sudova praktyka: analiz etapiv zaprovadzhennia ta rozvytku v Ukraini’ (2019) 68 Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia yurydychna 35–49 (in Ukrainian).

28. Strieltsova O, ‘Spivvidnoshennia poniat sudovoho pretsedentu ta sudovoi praktyky (teoretychnyi aspekt)’ (2004) 10 Pravo Ukrainy 136–40 (in Ukrainian).

29. Verbytskyi D, ‘Teoretyko-pravovi aspekty formuvannia pretsendentnoho prava’ (2019) 4 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 12–15 (in Ukrainian).

30. Yasyniuk M, ‘Sudove rishennia v pozovnomu ta okremomu provadzhenni tsyvilnoho protsesualnoho prava Ukrainy (teoretychnyi aspekt)’ (2008) 5 Biuleten Ministerstva yustytsii Ukrainy 51–6 (in Ukrainian).

31. Zelenko I, ‘Pravovi peredumovy ta metodyka vykorystannia yurydychnykh analohii’ (2009) 1 Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo 60–3 (in Ukrainian).

Theses

 32. Anakina T, ‘Sudovyi pretsedent u pravi Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu’ (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2008) (in Ukrainian).

33. Huralenko N, ‘Sudovyi pretsedent v systemi dzherel prava: filosofsko-pravovyi aspekt’ (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2009) (in Ukrainian).

34. Khoroshkovska D, ‘Rol Sudovoi Praktyky V Systemi Dzherel Prava Ukrainy Teoretykopravove Doslidzhennia’ (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2006) (in Ukrainian).

35. Savchenko K, ‘Sudova praktyka yak element pravovoi systemy Ukrainy’ (avtoref dys kand yuryd nauk, 2019) (in Ukrainian).

Newspaper articles

36. ‘Perspektyva vvedennia v Ukraini sudovoho pretsedentu yak dzherela prava’ (Pravovyi tyzhden) <http://legalweekly.com.ua/index.php?id=16061&show=news&news id=120594> (accessed: 30.11.2020) (in Ukrainian).

37. Shafarchuk V, ‘Sudovyi pretsedent v Ukraini’ (Iurydychna Hazeta, 03.09.2013) (in Ukrainian).