The article provides a theoretical and methodological analysis of judicial procedure as the institutional foundation for the organization of judicial activity, which establishes a normatively defined framework for the administration of justice. It is substantiated that, in its dynamic dimension, law manifests itself not merely as a system of normative prescriptions but primarily as a process of their application, which acquires stability, orderliness, and determinacy through procedural regulation. Through procedural mechanisms and structural interconnections, law forms an organized system of interaction in which order is opposed to chaos, freedom to arbitrariness, and authority to anarchy.

The study emphasizes that the effective functioning of law is impossible outside a procedural framework, which serves as a structural mechanism for organizing law-enforcement activity and ensuring its stability, consistency, and predictability. The research identifies the key characteristics of judicial procedure, including its formalized nature, stage-based structure, logical sequence, chronological determinacy, cyclical development, and the systemic interrelations among its constituent elements. Particular attention is paid to the fact that procedural form functions not only as a technical instrument for structuring judicial proceedings but also as a prerequisite for ensuring legality, establishing the truth, and maintaining the predictability of justice. A judicial decision deprived of an appropriate procedural form loses the clarity of its mechanisms of implementation, which, in turn, significantly complicates and sometimes even prevents its effective enforcement.

It is concluded that judicial procedure performs the role of a fundamental institutional mechanism for the realization of law, within which the principle of legality is harmonized with the requirements of formal justice, while the legality of a judicial decision is aligned with its social legitimacy. Taken together, these elements ensure the authority and credibility of the judiciary.

Authored books

1. Huralenko N, Suddivske pravopiznannia: prakseolohichnyi vymir (Tekhnodruk 2013) (in Ukrainian).Journal articles

2. Dufeniuk O, ‘Formalizm u kryminalnomu provadzhenni: sutnist ta ryzyky dysbalansu’ [2022] 6 Yurydychnyi visnyk 91 https://doi.org/10.32782/yuv.v6.2022.11 (in Ukrainian).

3. Fedorenko A, ‘Sudova protsedura kriz pryzmu harantii prav liudyny: istoryko-pravovyi aspekt’ [2025] 3 Aktualni problemy vitchyznianoi yurysprudentsii 4 https://doi. org/10.32782/2408-9257-2025-3-1 (in Ukrainian).

4. Huralenko N, Hordieiev V, ‘Formalnyi kharakter sudovoi protsedury: teoretyko- metodolohichni osnovy administratyvnoho sudochynstva’ [2022] 1 Pravova pozytsiia 62 (in Ukrainian).

5. Mykolenko O I, Mykolenko O M, Tokarchuk L M, ‘Protsesualna forma ta protsesualnyi formalizm v suchasnomu pravoznavstvi’ [2025] 6 Pravo i suspilstvo 535 https://doi. org/10.32842/2078-3736/2025.6.74 (in Ukrainian).

6. Stratonov V, ‘Efektyvna sudova protsedura v aspekti pryntsypu verkhovenstva prava’ [2024] 6 Aktualni problemy vitchyznianoi yurysprudentsii 38–43 https://doi.org/10.32782/2408- 9257-2024-6-6 (in Ukrainian).