Review

The article deals with the analysis of separate innovations of normative regulation of the sphere of the judicial system functioning caused by the constitutional reform of justice and coming into force of the Law of Ukraine «On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges» of 2 June 2016.

Particularly, the attention is drawn to approaches applied to institutional matrix of the judicial system. The author describes the effort to hold normativization of the idea of pertaining the institutions of prosecution and advocacy to the judicial power, which is a characteristic peculiarity of the contemporary period of reformation, and by which it is significantly different from previous ones. Herewith, it is emphasized that it is not the first time in the history of the judicial reform, when changes to the national judiciary take prominent place in the complex of measures proposed to be implemented. While analyzing them, the article provides the criticism of the new edition of the Article 125 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which in the author’s opinion, creates vacuum situation in the judicial system organization, which, as historical experience testifies, threatens to «fill up» in a new manner each time after changing political elite in country. Besides, in the author’s opinion, the liquidation of the Supreme Court of Ukraine is unjustified, since it is aimed at getting rid of its staff. In general, incorrect HR policy of the contemporary judicial reform can cause its high social price, the expression of which will be represented by the violation of an individual’s right to judicial protection.

Separately, the author considers such an innovation as implementing monopoly of advocacy institution to representation of interests in court. Particularly, the author analyses the risks of its realization in the judicial system, and on the basis of the held analysis a range of reasons against such an innovation is provided.

Besides, there is an author’s position concerning functional transformation of the institution of prosecution.

To sum up, the author made opinion about haste, radicalism and lack of scientific basis for implemented innovations, which can have negative impact on the achievement of goals declared by the judicial reform.

Key words: judicial system; judicial reform; court; justice; advocacy; prosecution; constitutional reform.