The main focus of the article is on the study of such an issue as distinction between the courts’ jurisdictions. As practice shows, the parties to disputed relations, as well as the nature of public relations giving rise to the conflict, may not be regarded as the exhaustive criteria to determine which court has the competence to resolve it (the conflict).

The article aims at finding additional criteria which may be taken into account to establish the procedural form that would be most suitable for resolving a legal dispute with characteristic features.

 The article notes that there are courts of different jurisdictions since their judges should specialize in resolution of conflicts which ensure from legal relations in different branches of law and are subject to regulation by means of substantive rules of different branches of law. Thus, judges with specialization are able to exercise the highest level of understanding of branch-specific substantive rules, demonstrate their ability to interpret such rules in a professional manner and, therefore, be a model in application of the same.

 At the same time, it is noted that courts adhere to different procedural laws which accumulate the rules characterized by certain specifics; a “specialized” court operates according to the rules which help create decent conditions for parties to a conflict to exercise their procedural rights. This means that where the jurisdiction is correctly defined, this guarantees not only a high degree of judicial competence in the application of substantive rules, but also an equally valuable “procedural comfort” which should be felt by each participant to a trial.

The author suggests that resolution of the issue of how to delineate court jurisdictions should be approached not through identifying the signs of disputes and forming of their lists, but by searching for an answer to the question whether special procedural rules should be used to resolve them (disputes).

It is stated that initially the content of special procedural rules is reflected in the norms of court procedure principles; such rules are developed in further procedural regulations.

The Code of Administrative Court Procedure of Ukraine (Ukraine’s CACP) is adjusted for resolution of conflicts which involve holders of public power. Therefore, all of its rules resting upon the principles written out at the beginning of Ukraine’s CACP are aimed at creating the conditions under which persons at law – parties to a dispute, which are unequal in substantive relations, achieve equality in the court process.

 The author makes certain generalizations which illustrate how special provisions of Ukraine’s CACP operate to guarantee the equality of parties in administrative court proceedings. These generalizations are accompanied by examples of court decisions in tax dispute cases, and this once again allows ascertaining that the administrative procedural form was the right choice for resolution of such disputes.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Kolpakov V ta Hordieiev V, Yurysdyktsiia administratyvnykh sudiv [Jurisdiction of Administrative Courts] (Kharkiv yurydychnyi 2011) (in Ukrainian).

2. Komarov V ta Bihun V ta Barankova V, Kurs tsyvilnoho protsesu: pidruchnyk [Course of Civil Process: Textbook] (Pravo 2011) (in Ukrainian).

3. Pysarenko N ta Somina V, Administratyvno-pravovi spory (udoskonalennia poriadku vyrishennia) [Administrative-Legal Disputes (Improvement of the Order of Settlement)] (Pravo 2012) (in Ukrainian).

4. Smokovych M, Vyznachennia yurysdyktsii administratyvnykh sudiv ta rozmezhuvannia sudovykh yurysdyktsii [Definition of Jurisdiction of Administrative Courts and Delimitation of Judicial Jurisdictions] (Iurinkom Inter 2012) (in Ukrainian).

Journals articles

5. Bytiak Yu ta Pysarenko N, ‘Protsesualna forma vidpravlennia pravosuddia v sporakh za uchastiu sub’iektiv vladnykh povnovazhen’ [‘The Procedural form of the Administration of Justice in Disputes Involving the Authorities’] (2006) 10 Pravo Ukrainy 78 (in Ukrainian).

6. Kucheriavenko M, ‘Do pytannia shchodo vyznachennia yurysdyktsiinosti podatkovykh sporiv’ [‘On the Issue of Determining the Jurisdiction of Tax Disputes’] (2013) 1/2 Pravo Ukrainy 87 (in Ukrainian).

7. Lytvynova H, ‘Problemy rozmezhuvannia yurysdyktsii spetsializovanykh sudiv Ukrainy: vypadkovist chy zakonomirnist?’ [‘Problems of Delimitation of Jurisdiction of Specialized Courts of Ukraine: Chance or Regularity? ’] (2006) 1 Visnyk hospodarskoho sudochynstva 24 (in Ukrainian). 8. Osetynskyi A, ‘Konkurentsiia sudovykh yurysdyktsii v aspekti zabezpechennia ustalenoi sudovoi praktyky u zemelnykh sporakh’ [‘Competition of the Courts of Jurisdiction in the Aspect of Establishing Litigation in Land Disputes’] (2009) 5 Visnyk hospodarskoho sudochynstva 21 (in Ukrainian).

9. Pysarenko N, ‘Rozmezhuvannia yurysdyktsii sudiv shchodo vyrishennia sporiv za uchastiu sub’iektiv vladnykh povnovazhen’ [‘Distinguishing the Jurisdiction of the Courts for the Settlement of Disputes Involving the Authorities’] (2011) 4 Pravo Ukrainy 59 (in Ukrainian).

Newspaper articles

10. Kucheriavenko M, ‘Reformuvannia yurysdyktsii: pro chy contra?’ [‘Jurisdictional Reform: Pro or Contra?’] (2020) 6 Yurydychnyi visnyk Ukrainy 6 (in Ukrainian).

11. Kucheriavenko M ta Smychok Ye, ‘Praktyka Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu: “peremoha” chy kolaps?’ [‘The Case Law of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court: “Victory” or Collapse’] (2018) 50 Yurydychnyi visnyk Ukrainy 6 (in Ukrainian).