In Ukraine, as in any democratic state, constitutional rights and freedoms are recognized. The state guarantees their effective protection. One of the most important types of such protection is judicial. The Constitution of Ukraine guarantees everyone judicial protection of rights within the constitutional, administrative, civil, commercial and criminal proceedings of Ukraine, so specialized proceedings are carried out according to the relevant procedural rules-algorithms.

 National legislation stipulates that justice as a state activity must be administered at all times, that is continuously, constantly. The right to judicial protection within the meaning of part two of Article 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine may not be restricted, even in conditions of martial law or state of emergency. Thus, the unshakable stability of the administration of justice must be ensured without appeal by the state, even in such nonstandard conditions as war or natural disaster.

The imperative determinism of ensuring judicial protection of human and civil rights and freedoms, on the one hand, is due to the fact that according to the Constitution of Ukraine “man, his life and health, honor and dignity, inviolability and security are recognized in Ukraine as the highest social value; human rights and freedoms and their guarantees determine the content and direction of the state; the establishment and protection of human rights and freedoms is the main duty of the state” (Article 3), and on the other hand, the “jurisdiction” of the national court does not change depending on which legal regime – peaceful or military – operates in the state. Thus, the full functional competence of any court of the national judicial system is indisputable, the jurisdiction of judges “extends to any legal dispute”, regardless of any force majeure. 

Given this, we have legal antagonism, de jure, the administration of justice in the state must be continuous throughout the state, regardless of any force majeure, de facto – often the administration of justice in wartime is impossible due to lack of critically minimum acceptable conditions for this (premises, equipment, communication etc.). 

In addition, the issue of security of both participants as for the trial and judges, court staff, due to whose functional activities this process is made possible, etc. is of paramount importance. In such circumstances, the issue of ensuring “proper” and “safe” working conditions, defined and guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine (parts 1, 4 of Article 43) is relevant. 

Analysis of recent research and publications shows that in the doctrine of law there are virtually no scientific studies, the subject of legal analysis of which is the issue of distance learning of judges. Some views on this issue were expressed by the Council of Judges of Ukraine, but the Parliament of Ukraine in fact distanced itself from the direct solution of this issue by amending the procedural legislation of Ukraine. Therefore, given the large areas where hostilities are taking place or have already taken place in Ukraine, significant destruction of the infrastructure and housing stock of these territories, and the related forced relocation of an unprecedented number of Ukrainian citizens to safer places, is particularly relevant the issue of introducing remote work for those working in the public sector. Such categories of persons include judges. Given the procedural specifics of the administration of justice, especially acute in wartime, there are questions about the possibility and legitimacy of the remote form of work of judges. 

The purpose of this publication is to find the optimal procedural format for the administration of justice in the state, which would be objectively and as adaptively acceptable in force majeure, including martial law and state of emergency.

 In the process of research the subject normative-legal base on legality of introduction of remote form of work in the public sector of Ukraine is studied and analyzed, and also methods of interpretation, analysis, comparison, system and prognostic methods are used, thanks this to purpose of this scientific article is reached. 

The results of exploration show that the remote format of justice should be understood not as a personal or professional privilege of judges, but as a forced step aimed at continuous performance of functions and tasks of the state in the field of justice in war, necessary to ensure security court etc.

 In the context of presenting the final generalizations of the publication: 

a) the author’s definition of “judicial process” as a complex legal phenomenon is proposed, the ascending requirements for its practical implementation are determined bythe Constitution and laws of Ukraine by a combination of different logical and consistent procedures while maintaining a certain traditional ceremony of its implementation;

 b) it is substantiated that the remote form of justice in Ukraine is acceptable and objectively necessary, because such a format of justice ensures, on the one hand, the security of participants in the trial, judges, court staff, and on the other – the continuity of the trial activated through the prism of the inviolability of the rules of procedure. This means that the remote form of the judiciary cannot go beyond the rules of the trial, procedurally significant actions of judges can not violate procedural law, only to ensure the proper implementation of its provisions, so the judiciary in the remote form of justice can now resolve a limited range of procedural issues; 

c) the institution of written administrative proceedings or a separate procedural issue should be significantly expanded, it does not harm the quality and appropriateness of justice, the parties to the trial and is acceptable for organizing the work of the judiciary, court staff of Ukraine during martial law and emergency, and beyond its action.