The unity and sustainability of judicial practice in modern science and law enforcement practice is traditionally considered in the context of the tasks of the Supreme Court defined by Article 36 of the Law of Ukraine “On Judiciary and the Status of Judges” and procedural laws in accordance with the form of justice. However, such a factor of the unity of judicial practice as the standard of interpretation of regulations is insufficiently paid attention, which leaves the preconditions for the unpredictability of the law. The purpose of this article is to find ways to regulate such an unrecognized by the legislator factor of unity of judicial practice as the interpretation of law, because the limits of court discretion in the administration of justice depend on the limits of interpretation of regulations. The article proposes a rethinking of the classical understanding of the separation of powers and its filling with a modern context. The necessity of streamlining judicial interpretation through the adoption by the Council of Europe of the relevant international act – the conclusion of the Advisory Council of European Judges – has been proved. The use of six elements of interpretation is proposed as the basis of the standard of legal interpretation (justice): 1) text; 2) the history of this text; 3) traditions (as this text was used before); 4) precedent (established case law); 5) the purpose of the provision; 6) the consequences of interpretation. It has been proved that the regulation of interpretation is necessary in order to achieve greater synchronization of case law both between the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights and between the courts of cassation of the Supreme Court. Further research on the correlation of the main traditional approaches to the interpretation of regulations with the proposed standard of interpretation in the context of achieving legal certainty and predictability of law is proposed.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Breyer S, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution (Vintage Books 2005) (in English).

2. Honcharov V, Dynamichne tlumachennia yurydychnykh norm [Pratsi Lvivskoi laboratorii prav liudyny i hromadianyna. Seriia 1: Doslidzhennia ta referaty. Vyp. 27] (Spolom 2013) (in Ukrainian). 3. Karapetov A, Bor’ba za priznanie sudebnogo pravotvorchestva v evropejskom i amerikanskom prave (Ctatut 2011) (in Russian).

Journal articles

4. Antoshkina V, ‘Sposoby tlumachennia v tsyvilnomu pravi ta yikh rol v pravozastosovnii praktytsi’ (2015) 3 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 111 (in Ukrainian).

5. Horbatiuk V, ‘Bahatoaspektna protsedura tlumachennia pravovykh norm’ [2016] 1 (16) Informatsiia i pravo 81 (in Ukrainian).

6. Kosovych V, ‘Normatyvna rehlamentatsiia tlumachennia normatyvno-pravovykh aktiv Ukrainy yak peredumova dlia yikh udoskonalennia’ (2013) 11 Nashe pravo 8 (in Ukrainian).

7. Malyshev B, ‘Teleolohichnyi sposib tlumachennia norm prava: zahalnoteoretychni aspekty’ (2011) 10 Advokat 10 (in Ukrainian).

8. Opotiak S, ‘Pro tendentsiiu teleolohichnoho (tsilovoho) tlumachennia’ (2012) 11 Biuleten Ministerstva yustytsii Ukrainy 103 (in Ukrainian).

9. Yevhrafova Ye, ‘Doktrynalne tlumachennia norm prava (zakoniv): pryroda i zdiisnennia’ (2010) 2 Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy 44 (in Ukrainian).

Websites

10. Judkovskaja A, ‘Sumerki prav cheloveka i Evropejskij sud’ (Rakurs, 25.03.2016) <https:// racurs.ua/1136-prava-anna-udkovskaya.html> (accessed: 21.05.2021) (in Russian).

11. Kibenko O, ‘Vplyv rishen Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu na zakonotvorchu diialnist’ v Onlain-konferentsiia “Zabezpechennia yednosti sudovoi praktyky: pravovi pozytsii Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu ta standarty Rady Yevropy” <https://supreme. court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/new_folder_for_uploads/supreme/Prezentasia_Kibenko_ zakonotv_dijal.pdf> (accessed: 21.05.2021) (in Ukrainian).