Review

Annotation. Judicial ethics, which permeates the professional status of a judge, is reflected in absolutely all its elements and interacts with them. The institution of disciplinary responsibility of a judge, which plays an extremely important role for judicial ethics, is no exception. The purpose of the article is to research the norms of judicial ethics in their interrelationship with the disciplinary responsibility of the judge that occurs in case of their violation. Based on the analysis of the norms of the current legislation, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and disciplinary practice of the High Council of Justice, a number of conclusions were drawn that determine the specifics of bringing a judge to justice for violating ethical norms. Among them are the following: 1) the objectively determined general nature of the norms and wording, the lack of clarity in the description of the judge’s behavior, which can become the basis for initiating disciplinary proceedings, which requires further assessment by law enforcement authorities; 2) a large degree of subjectivism on the part of disciplinary authorities in assessing the circumstances of the case (actions and consequences) in the context of interpreting the provisions of the legislation; 3) the objective side of disciplinary misconduct, which consists in the judge’s admission of behavior that does not correspond to or violates the norms of judicial ethics, as a result of which the authority of justice and the reputation of the high rank of a judge are harmed. By themselves, violations of ethical norms cannot be considered as a basis for the judge’s responsibility. At the same time, the unethical behavior of a judge, which caused reputational losses to the status of a judge and the judiciary, can be qualified as a significant disciplinary offense, gross neglect of duties, which is incompatible with the status of a judge; 4) the special and decisive importance of law enforcement practice, which must «establish a consistent and restrictive interpretation» of all evaluative concepts and categories used in the general formulations of the grounds for a judge’s responsibility; 5) a limited scale of disciplinary sanctions that can be applied to a judge for committing unethical behavior, and the justified application of the most severe form of punishment – dismissal of a judge from office; 6)»accompanying» nature of responsibility for violation of ethical norms, if this occurred during the administration of justice, since in this case it is usually combined with responsibility for violation of procedural legislation. But its character is «independent» if the judge’s unethical behavior was not committed in connection with his authority to administer justice. Key words: judge’s status, judge’s ethics, norms of judicial ethics, disciplinary responsibility of a judge, violation of ethical norms. REFERENCES LIST OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS CASES

1. Vysnovok № 3 (2002) Konsultatyvnoi rady yevropeiskykh suddiv do uvahy Komitetu Ministriv Rady Yevropy shchodo pryntsypiv ta pravyl, yaki rehuliuiut profesiinu povedinku suddiv, zokrema, pytannia etyky, nesumisnoi povedinky ta bezstoronnosti [Conclusion No. 3 (2002) of the Advisory Council of European Judges to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe regarding the principles and rules governing the professional conduct of judges, in particular, issues of ethics, incompatible behavior and impartiality] data zvernennia 04.05.2022 [in Ukrainian].
2. Vysnovok № 21 (2018) Konsultatyvnoi rady yevropeiskykh suddi do uvahy Komitetu ministriv Rady Yevropy «Pro zapobihannia koruptsii sered suddiv» [Conclusion No. 21 (2018) of the Advisory Council of European Judges to the attention of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe «On Prevention of Corruption Among Judges»] data zvernenia 04.05.2022 [in Ukrainian].
3. Rishennia Druhoi Dystsyplinarnoi palaty Vyshchoi rady pravosuddia [Decision of the Second Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council of Justice] vid 30.05.2018 № 1596/2dp/15–18 [in Ukrainian].
4. Rishennia Tretoi Dystsyplinarnoi palaty Vyshchoi rady pravosuddia [Decision of the Third Disciplinary Chamber of the High Council] vid 09.06.2021 № 1271/3dp/15–21 [in Ukrainian].
5. Sprava «Oleksandr Volkov proty Ukrainy» [The case «Olexandr Volkov v. Ukraine»] Zaiava № 21722/11. Rishennia Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny vid 09.01.2013 data zvernenia 04.05.2022 [in Ukrainian].

BIBLIOGRAFHY AUTHORED BOOKS

1. Pohoretskyi M A, Polovyi O L, Yanovska O H, Harantii suddivskoi nezalezhnosti pry prytiahnenni suddiv do yurydychnoi vidpovidalnosti [Guarantees of judicial independence when judges are held legally liable] (Kyiv, VD «Dakor», 2014) 308 [in Ukrainian].
2. Sudoustrii Ukrainy [The judicial system of Ukraine] / M A Pohoretskyi, O P Kuchynska, O H Yanovska ta in.; za red. M A Pohoretskoho, O H Yanovskoi (Kyiv, Yurinkom Inter, 2015) 59–161 [in Ukrainian].
3. Zakon Ukrainy «Pro sudoustrii i status suddiv»: naukovo-praktychnyi komentar [The Law of Ukraine «On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges»: scientific and practical commentary] / M A Pohoretskyi, O P Kuchynska, O Z Khotynska-Nor ta in.; za zah. red. M A Pohoretskoho, O Z Khotynskoi-Nor ta O H Yanovskoi (Kyiv, Alerta, 2019) 668 [in Ukrainian].

EDITED BOOKS

1. Pohoretskyi M A (za zah. red.), Zakon Ukrainy «Pro sudoustrii i status suddiv»: naukovo-praktychnyi komentar [Law of Ukraine «On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges»: scientific and practical commentary] (Kyiv, Alerta, 2019) 668 [in Ukrainian].

JOURNAL ARTICLES

1. Bihun V S, Dobrochesnist yak pryntsyp pravosuddia: postanovka problemy ta suchasnyi dyskurs [Integrity as a principle of justice: problem statement and modern discourse] (2018) 2 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 29–33 [in Ukrainian].
2. Khotynska-Nor O Z, Dystsyplinarna vidpovidalnist vs nezalezhnist suddi: u poshukakh balansu [Disciplinary responsibility vs independence of the judge: in search of a balance] (2018) 3 Pravo Ukrainy 110–122 [in Ukrainian]. 12. Pohoretskyi M A, Hrytsenko I S, Pravo na spravedlyvyi sud [The right to a fair trial] (2012) 91 Visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Yurydychni nauky 4–7 [in Ukrainian].
3. Pohoretskyi M A, Yanovska O H, Aktualni pytannia zastosuvannia mizhnarodnykh standartiv vidkrytosti sudovoi systemy v Ukraini [Current issues of application of international standards of openness of the judicial system in Ukraine] (2014) 2 (7) Slovo natsionalnoi shkoly suddiv Ukrainy 39–48 [in Ukrainian].

CONFERENCE PAPERS

1. Savchyn M V, Moral Integrity (moralna tsilisnist, dobrochesnist) suddiv ta publichnykh sluzhbovtsiv yak skladova pravovoi derzhavy [Moral Integrity of judges and public officials as a component of the rule of law. Transcarpathian legal readings] Zakarpatski pravovi chytannia: materialy KhI Mizhnarodnoi naukovopraktychnoi konferentsii (11–13 kvitnia 2019 r., m. Uzhhorod) (Uzhhorod: RIK-U, 2019) 372 [in Ukrainian].

DISSERTATION 15. Ovcharenko O M, Yurydychna vidpovidalnist suddiv: pytannia teorii i praktyky [Legal responsibility of judges: issues of theory and practice] (dys. …d-ra. yuryd. nauk. Odesa. 2018) 526 [in Ukrainian].