The article presents a comprehensive theoretical and legal study of the doctrine of dispositiveness in commercial procedure through the prism of contemporary public-law transformations of adjudication. Proceeding from the classical concept of dispositiveness as a principle that ensures the autonomy of the parties in the disposition of their substantive and procedural rights, the evolution of its content is analysed in the context of the growing public element in commercial adjudication. It is demonstrated that the traditional model of dispositiveness, built on the predominance of the parties’ procedural initiative and the relatively passive role of the court, is gradually transforming under the influence of contemporary trends in the development of procedural law, including the strengthening of the principle of the effectiveness of justice, the expansion of judicial discretionary powers, the introduction of mechanisms of judicial case management, and the increasing role of public interests in commercial adjudication. The article substantiates that these transformations necessitate a reconsideration of the content of dispositiveness as a principle of commercial procedure and the formation of its new doctrinal model, which combines party autonomy with an active procedural role of the court. In this context, the concept of so-called “managed party autonomy” is justified, which presupposes the exercise by the parties of their procedural rights within the framework of judicial case management. Particular

attention is devoted to analysing the correlation between dispositiveness and the principles of the effectiveness of judicial proceedings, procedural economy, proportionality, and the right to a fair trial. The article concludes that the doctrine of dispositiveness in commercial procedure requires reconceptualization. It is proposed to view dispositiveness not merely as a guarantee of party autonomy in proceedings, but as a balanced mechanism of interaction between the private-law interests of the participants in the dispute and the public-law objectives of the administration of justice. It is substantiated that the modern model of dispositiveness should be based on the combination of the procedural freedom of the parties with the active organisational and case-management role of the court aimed at ensuring the effective, fair, and timely resolution of commercial disputes. It is further argued that the further development of the doctrine of commercial procedural law in respect of the implementation of the principle of dispositiveness should proceed not through a revision of its fundamental significance, but through a clarification of its content, functions, and limits under the new conditions of legal regulation of economic turnover. Prospective directions for such development are also identified.

Authored books

1. Andrews N, The Three Paths of Justice: Court Proceedings, Arbitration, and Mediation in England (Springer 2018).

2. Borovyk A, Shevchuk S, Zastosuvannia pryntsypiv dyspozytyvnosti ta zmahalnosti v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi z metoiu realizatsii prava na spravedlyvyi sud (Iurydyka 2023) (in Ukrainian).

3. Kroitor V, Pryntsypy tsyvilnoho sudochynstva ta yikh systema: problemy suchasnoi teorii i praktyky (Pravo 2020) (in Ukrainian). pravoua.com.ua 82 Вікторія Рєзнікова Edited books

4. Kramer X E, van Rhee C H (eds), Civil Litigation in a Globalising World (T.M.C. Asser Press 2012) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-817-0.

5. van Rhee C H, Uzelac A (eds), Truth and Efficiency in Civil Litigation: Fundamental Aspects of Fact-finding and Evidence-taking in a Comparative Context (Intersentia 2012). Journal articles

6. Hentosh R, ‘Dyspozytyvnist – mizhhaluzevyi pryntsyp protsesualnoho prava’ [2018] 52(1) Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu: seriia: Pravo 13–16 (in Ukrainian).

7. Malieieva O, ‘Pryntsyp dyspozytyvnosti v hospodarskomu protsesi’ [2016] 2(15) Slovo Natsionalnoi shkoly suddiv Ukrainy 97–106 (in Ukrainian).

8. Rieznikova V, Shcherbyna V, ‘Suchasni tendentsii rozvytku hospodarskoho protsesu Ukrainy’ [2017] 9 Pravo Ukrainy 9–27 (in Ukrainian).

9. Shcherbyna V, ‘Publichni y pryvatni interesy v hospodarskykh vidnosynakh’ [2014] 13 Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo 28–31 (in Ukrainian).

10. Shevchuk S, ‘Pryntsyp dyspozytyvnosti yak osnova administratyvnoho sudochynstva: novitnii dyskurs’ [2023] 1 Naukovyi visnyk publichnoho ta pryvatnoho prava 196–200 https://doi.org/10.32844/2618-1258.2023.1.34 (in Ukrainian). Websites

11. ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (accessed 27.03.2026).

12. ELI/UNIDROIT Model European Rules of Civil Procedure (Oxford University Press 2021) (accessed 27.03.2026).

13. Guide on Article 6 of the Convention – Right to a fair trial (civil limb) (European Court of Human Rights, 31.08.2025) 154 (accessed 27.03.2026).