Having introduced a concentrated model of constitutional control, Ukraine is facing an extremely complex and equally important task of distribution of powers of general jurisdiction courts and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU).

The purpose of the article is to substantiate the position that the institutional design which ensures the supremacy of the Constitution of Ukraine determines the interaction of general jurisdiction courts and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine rather than their strict separation.

The author believes that it is erroneous to perceive the concentrated model of constitutional control as the one denying efficient participation of subjects other than CCU in the interpretation and protection of the Constitution from violations. CCU represents a single center but it is not the only subject in this activity. Other significant participants are general jurisdiction courts which have the obligation to ensure the efficiency of the Constitution by its direct application.

In the administration of justice, general jurisdiction courts should assess the content of any law or other statutory instrument in terms of compliance with the Constitution and, where necessary, should apply the Constitution as the act of direct effect and supreme legal force. This should not be perceived in a way that they violate CCU’s exclusive jurisdiction. Instead, we are talking about functional interaction of various subjects which ensure constitutional security, joint protection of an individual’s constitutional rights and freedoms directly on the basis of the Constitution.

First of all, general jurisdiction courts should strive to interpret applicable legal acts with a view to ensuring harmonization with the Constitution, and in the case of a clear and obvious contradiction which cannot in any way be harmonized with the Constitution, should abandon their application and apply the provisions of the Constitution as directly effective provisions.

This became possible in the context of the 2017 procedural reform, which, by assigning such powers to general jurisdiction courts, demonstrated an undeniable departure from the incident control procedure traditional within the framework of a concentrated model, and its evolutionary development. Such abandonment should necessarily result, as defined by acts of procedural legislation, in the appeal to the Supreme Court with a view to making a decision to file a submission to CCU as regards constitutionality. Undoubtedly, this requires the Supreme Court to carefully analyze each appeal and to exercise the right to CCU appeal in a reasonable and consistent manner.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Comella V, Constitutional Courts and Democratic Values: A European Perspective (Yale University Press 2009) (in English).

2. de Visser M, Constitutional Review in Europe: A Comparative Analysis (Hart 2013) (in English). 3. Kokott J, The Burden of Proof in Comparative and International Human Rights (Springer 1998) (in English).

4. Sadurski W, Rights before Courts. A Study of Constitutional Courts in Postcommunist States in Central and Eastern Europe (2nd edn, Springer 2014) (in English).

5. Sajo A and Uitz R, The Constitution of Freedom: An Introduction to Legal Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press 2017) (in English).

6. Shaman J, Constitutional Interpretation: Illusion and Reality (Praeger 2000) (in English).

7. Fukuyama F, Politychnyi poriadok i politychnyi zanepad. Vid promyslovoi revoliutsii do hlobalizatsii demokratii [The Political Order and Political Decay: From Industrial Revolution to the Globalization of Democracy] (Nash Format 2019) (in Ukrainian).

8. Hultai M, Konstytutsiina skarha u mekhanizmi dostupu do konstytutsiinoho pravosuddia [Constitutional Complaint in the Mechanism of Access to Constitutional Justice] (Pravo 2013) (in Ukrainian).

9. Savchyn M, Suchasni tendentsii konstytutsionalizmu v konteksti hlobalizatsii ta pravovoho pliuralizmu [Modern Constitutionalism Tendencies in Context of Globalization and Legal Pluralism] (RIK-U 2018) (in Ukrainian).

10. Todyka Ju, Osnovy konstitucionnogo stroja Ukrainy [Foundations of the Constitutional Order in Ukraine] (Fakt 1999) (in Russian).

Edited and translated books

11. Comella V, ‘The Rise of Specialized Constitutional Courts’ in Ginsburg T and Dixon R (eds), Comparative Constitutional Law (Edward Elgar Publishing 2011) (in English).

12. Grimm D, ‘Types of Constitutions’ in Rosenfeld M and Sajo A (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press 2012) (in English).

13. Raz J, ‘On the Authority and Interpretation of Constitutions: Some Preliminaries’ in Larry A (ed), Constitutionalism: Philosophical Foundations (Cambridge University Press 1998) (in English).

14. Rosenfeld M, ‘Constitutional Identity’ in Rosenfeld M and Sajo A (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law (Oxford University Press 2012) (in English).

15. Koziubra M (zah red), Zahalna teoriia prava: pidruchnyk [General Theory of Law: Textbook] (Vaite 2015) (in Ukrainian).

16. Radbruh G, Filosofija prava [Philosophy of Law] (Jumashev Ju per s nem, Mezhdunar. otnoshenija 2004) (in Russian).

17. Yezerov A, ‘Konstytutsiina bezpeka yak katehoriia suchasnoho konstytutsionalizmu’ [‘Constitutional Security as a Category of Modern Constitutionalism’] u Krusian A (zah red), Problemy suchasnoi konstytutsionalistyky: navchalnyi posibnyk [Problems of Modern Constitutionalism: Textbook] (3rd edn, Feniks 2015) (in Ukrainian).

Journal articles

18. Garlicki L, ‘Constitutional courts versus supreme courts’ [2007] 5 (1) I-CON 44 (in English). 19. Limbach J, ‘The Concept of the Supremacy of the Constitution’ (2001) 64 (1) The Modern Law Review 1 (in English).

20. Hryniuk R ta Bahrii O, ‘Do pytannia pro dotsilnist vyznannia prezumptsii konstytutsiinosti normatyvno-pravovykh aktiv u konteksti zabezpechennia verkhovenstva Konstytutsii Ukrainy’ [‘To a Question About the Appropriateness of Recognizing the Presumption of Constitutionality of Legal Acts From the Perspective of the Supremacy of the Constitution of Ukraine’] (2015) 4 Visnyk Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy 92 (in Ukrainian).

21. Kel’zen G, ‘Sudebnaja garantija konstitucii (konstitucionnaja justicija) Chast’ 1’ [‘Judicial Guarantee of the Constitution (Constitutional Justice) Part 1’] (2006) 8 Pravo i politika 5 (in Russian).

22. Kel’zen G, ‘Sudebnaja garantija konstitucii (konstitucionnaja justicija) Chast’ 2’ [‘Judicial Guarantee of the Constitution (Constitutional Justice) Part 2’] (2006) 9 Pravo i politika 5 (in Russian).

23. Kel’zen G, ‘Sudebnyj kontrol’ zakonodatel’stva: sravnitel’noe issledovanie avstrijskoj i amerikanskoj konstitucij’ [‘Judicial Review of Legislation: a Comparative Study of the Austrian and American Constitutions’] (2012) 2 Pravovedenie 190 (in Russian).

24. Koziubra M, ‘Verkhovenstvo prava i Ukraina’ [‘The Rule of Law and Ukraine’] (2012) 1–2 Pravo Ukrainy 30 (in Ukrainian).

25. Melnyk M ta Riznyk S, ‘Pro mezhi konstytutsiinoi yurysdyktsii ta priamu diiu norm Konstytutsii Ukrainy pry zdiisnenni pravosuddia’ [‘On the Limits of the Constitutional Jurisdiction and the Direct Effect of the Constitution of Ukraine During the Justice Process’] (2016) 4–5 Visnyk Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy 151 (in Ukrainian).

26. Riznyk S, ‘Perevirka sudamy zahalnoi yurysdyktsii konstytutsiinosti zakoniv Ukrainy yak promizhna forma konstytutsiinoho kontroliu (u konteksti prava osoby na konstytutsiinu skarhu)’ [‘Review of Ukraine’s Laws Constitutionality by GeneralJurisdiction Courts as an Intermediate Form of Constitutional Control (In the Context of a Person’s Right to Constitutional Complaint)’] (2018) 12 Pravo Ukrainy 163 (in Ukrainian).