The article proposes to consider judicial precedent as a regulator of judicial social relations since the procedural codes of 2017 have taken it beyond the scope of consideration of a specific judicial case and are mandatory for all subjects of power. It is noted that it is based on the legal conclusion of the Supreme Court in the first case (case of first consideration) and it, in turn, is taken into account as a constant value in future similar/similar cases.

It is noted that the unique role of judicial precedent at the current stage of development of Ukrainian statehood in conditions of martial law, distrust of the judicial system, and corruption scandals involving judges of all levels, is determined by the static component – ratio decidendi, which is constant in all such cases. This institution gives hope for the recovery of all social relations and the stability of the judicial system in particular. It is concluded that the introduction of a unified provision on the binding nature of the Supreme Court’s conclusions for all authorities, not just courts, presents a unique historical opportunity for the judicial system of Ukraine, represented by the Supreme Court, to implement legal regulation of social relations by basing its legal conclusions on precedents. In this context, a judicial precedent is proposed to be understood as a method and result of resolving the factual circumstances of a specific case based on a retrospective analysis of the circumstances and legal conclusions of the Supreme Court in similar (analogous) cases, achieving a legal result aimed at the future.

Bibliography

Journal articles

 1. Bernaziuk O, ‘The role of legal conclusion of The Supreme Court in providing the law principle’ [2022] 1 Konstytutsiino-pravovi akademichni studii 37–46.

2. Maksymovych R, ‘Sudovyi pretsedent yak dzherelo kryminalnoho prava’ [2021] 1 Sotsialnopravovi studii 93–102.

3. Nikolenko L, ‘Shchodo vyznachennia sudovoho pretsedentu v Ukraini’ [2014] 27 Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia: Pravo 25.

4. Parkhomenko N, ‘Iednist sudovoi praktyky yak skladova pravovoho rehuliuvannia’ [2020] 3 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 26.

5. Pilkov K, ‘Vysnovky Verkhovnoho Sudu: formula vysnovku, yoho obov’iazkovist ta mekhanizm vidstupu’ [2023] 8 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 201–209.

6. Pilkov K, ‘Novyi rozghliad spravy pislia skasuvannia rishennia Verkhovnym Sudom: problemy zabezpechennia zmahalnosti ta prava na spravedlyvyi sud’ [2022] 9 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 233–242.

7. Pilkov K, ‘Pytannia faktu ta prava: fundamentalne i prykladne rozmezhuvannia obstavyn spravy, yikh yurydychnoi kvalifikatsii i zastosuvannia prava’ [2020] 8 Pravo Ukrainy 144– 194.

8. Pilkov K, ‘Sposoby zakhystu prav u sudi: problemy suchasnoi hibrydnoi modeli’ [2022] 11 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 304–313.

Theses

9. Kaplina O, ‘Pravozastosovne tlumachennia sudom norm kryminalno-protsesualnoho prava’ (dys dokt yuryd nauk 2009).

10. Shevchuk S, ‘Zahalnoteoretychni problemy normatyvnosti aktiv sudovoi vlady’ (avtoref dys dokt yuryd nauk 2008).

Newspaper articles

11. Biletska L, ‘Chy spryiaie yednosti sudovoi praktyky vyrishennia vykliuchnoi pravovoi problemy’ (Iurydychna hazeta online, 20.02.2023) <https://yur-gazeta.com/publications/ practice/sudova-praktika/chi-spriyae-ednosti-sudovoyi-praktiki-virishennya-viklyuchnoyipravovoyiproblemi.html> (accessed 30.12.2024).

12. Kibenko O, ‘Perspektyvna diia pravovoho vysnovku (pozytsii) Verkhovnoho Sudu: chy dotsilno zaprovadyty v Ukraini?’ (Sudovo-iurydychna hazeta, 03.03.2020) <https://sud.ua/ ru/news/blog/162411-perspektivna-diya-pravovogo-visnovku-pozitsiyi-verkhovnogo-suduchidotsilno-zaprovaditi-v-ukrayini> (accessed 30.12.2024).

13. Biletska L, ‘Normatyvna i pretsedentna fraudatornist v ukrainskomu ta zarubizhnomu sudochynstvi’ (28.02.2023 Protokol) <https://protocol.ua/ua/normativna_i_pretsedentna_ fraudatornist_v_ukrainskomu_ta_zarubignomu_sudochinstvi> (accessed 30.12.2024).

Websites

14. “V zakonodavstvi Ukrainy ne zakripleno poniattia pretsedent, odnak tse ne oznachaie, shcho de-fakto yoho ne isnuie”, – suddia Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu Dmytro Hudyma (04 bereznia 2019) <https://court.gov.ua/archive/659343> (accessed 30.12.2024).