Different approaches to understanding the concept of form and content of the right of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine for separate opinion have been several times the subject of heated discussions, both within the body and abroad. At the same time, neither Law of Ukraine on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine nor Rules of procedure of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine doesn’t contain a specific definition of “separate opinion”, and in Ukrainian legal doctrine, despite some theoretical research, has not been established conceptual and categorical apparatus of this institute.

The article uses a comparative method to identify the basic principles of the implementation of separate opinions in the constitutional review bodies of the United States of America, the European Union and international judicial bodies.

It is established that in different legal systems term “separate opinion of a judge” within the constitutional proceedings has a different meaning. Thus, in the common law countries it is an instrument of judicial lawmaking. In parallel, the right of a judge to express a dissenting opinion in the countries of continental legal system contains themeaning of judicial independence, guarantees of professional dignity and adherence to one’s moral duty, which guarantee protection for judge from external pressure. Whereas in international judicial bodies the existence of this institute is mostly explained by the internationality of their members.

It was concluded that the institute of separate opinion is new for the law enforcement practice of independent Ukraine and needs further study and changes taking into account the already achieved methodological level. The main reason for the contradiction of views that arise around this institute at the national level is the disregard in the process of borrowing foreign experience of historical, ontological, axiological, epistemological and praxeological factors of social and state life.

Bibliography

Authored books

 1. Kelemen K, Judicial Dissent in European Constitutional Courts: A Comparative and Legal Perspective (Routledge 2017) (in English).

2. Martino A D, Le opinioni dissenzienti dei giudici costituzionali. Uno studio comparative (Jovene editore 2016) (in Italian).

3. Slіdenko I, Fenomenolohiia konstytutsiinoho kontroliu. Geneza, pryroda i pozytsiiuvannia v konteksti aksiolohichnykh, epistemolohichnykh, prakseolohichnykh, synerhetychnykh aspektiv (Istyna 2010) (in Ukranian).

Edited books

4. Flauss J-F, ‘Les juges des pays d’Europe centrale et orientale à la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme: vues de l’extérieur’ in Louis Edmond Pettiti (ed), M élanges en hommage à Louis-Edmond Pettiti (Bruxelles 1998) (in France).

 5. Strashun B (Red), Konstitucionnoe (gosudarstvennoe) pravo zarubezhnyh stran (3-e izd BEK, 2000) (in Russian).

Journal articles

6. Austin J M, ‘The Law of Citations and Seriatim Opinions: Were the Ancient Romans and the Early Supreme Court on the Right Track? (2010) 31 The Northern Illinois University Law Review 19 (in English).

7. Bennet T B and others, ‘Divide & Concur: Separate Opinions & Legal Change’ [2018] 103 (4) Cornell Law Review 817 (in English).

8. Groppi T, ‘The Italian Constitutional Court: Towards a ‘Multilevel System’ of Constitutional Review?’ (2010) 4 Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 1 (in English).

 9. Henderson M T, ‘From Seriatim to Consensus and Back Again: A Theory of Dissent’ (2007) 363 John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper (in English).

10. Kelemen K, ‘Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts’ [2013] 14 (08) German Law Journal 1345 (in English).

11. Marmazov V, ‘Okremі dumky suddіv jak obmezhujuchyj element dynamіchnogo tlumachennya Yevropejs’koi Konvencіi pro zahyst prav ljudyny ta osnovnyh svobod’ (2003) 9 Naukovyi vіsnyk Dyplomatychnoi akademii Ukrainy 252 (in Ukranian).

12. Savchuk K, Melnychuk O, ‘Mizhnarodnyi sud OON yak zasib myrnoho rozv’iazannia mizhnarodnykh sporiv u suchasnomu mizhnarodnomu pravi’ (2013) 4 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 345 (in Ukranian).

Conference papers

13. “Constitutional justice – some comparative remarks’ (Report by Mr László Sólyom), Conference on “Constitutional Justice and the Rule of Law” Venice Сomission (Vilnius 4–5 September 2003) <https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDLJU( 2003)030-e> (accessed: 16.08.2021) (in English).

14. Butkevych V, ‘Evoljucіja kryterіiv reformuvannja Yevropejs’kogo Sudu z prav ljudyny (zdobutki і vtraty)’ v Kіvalov S (red), Pravove zabezpechennia efektyvnoho vykonannia rіshen і zastosuvannia praktyky Yevropejs’koho Sudu z prav liudyny: Mіzhnarodna naukovo-praktychna konferencіia (Fenіks 2012) (in Ukranian).

Thesis

15. Logacheva E, ‘Separate and dissenting opinions: their role in the practice of the ICJ’ (Student Master’s Thesis, Riga graduate school of law 2019) (in English).

Websites

16. ‘Supreme Court Procedures’ (U.S. Courts) <https://www.uscourts.gov/aboutfederalcourts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/ supreme-1> (accessed: 13.08.2021) (in English).