Review

The main task of the development of justice is to establish the rule of law in the state and to ensure the right to a fair, competent judicial review by an independent court within a reasonable time. The key issue of the judiciary in Ukraine was and remains the imperfect national system of judicial system, as evidenced by numerous discussions by scientists, practitioners and lawyers, and constant legislative searches for perfect provisions of legislation, both substantive and procedural law. n addition, the confirmation of this is almost unchanged in terms of the content and nature of the recommendations, remarks and criticisms produced by various European institutions – the Council of Europe, in particular the European Commission for Democracy through Law, the European Court of Human Rights, the European Union, in particular the European Parliament, for a long period of time. One of the guarantees of fair justice in any state is an efficiently organized system of courts. The organizational foundations of the national judicial system are: 1) the unity of the judicial system; 2) construction of a system of judges of general jurisdiction on the principles of territoriality, specialization, authority. Courts in Ukraine specialize in civil, criminal, economic, administrative cases, as well as cases of administrative offenses. For the consideration of certain categories of cases in the system of justice, there are higher specialized courts. Judicial reform in Ukraine in 2016 indicates the expansion of the specialization of courts and judges and the change of the system of higher specialized courts. Therefore, the exploring of the implementation of the principle of specialization in the national legal system is relevant.

The purpose of this article is to explore the principle of specialization sn the structure of the national system of justice through the theoretical approaches, practical aspects and international standards in this area.

References

1. 1. Konstytutsiia Ukrainy: Konstytutsiia, Zakon vid 28.06.1996 № 254k/96-VR. [Constitution of Ukraine] дата звернення 08.10.2018 (in Ukranian).
2. Zakon Ukrainy Pro Sudoustrii I Status Suddiv: Zakon Ukrainy Vid 02.06.2016 № 1402-VIII [The Law of Ukraine of the Judiciary and the Status of Judges] дата звернення 08.10.2018 (in Ukranian).
3. Vysnovok № 15 (2012) Konsultatyvnoi rady yevropeiskykh suddiv do uvahy Komitetu Ministriv Rady Yevropy shchodo spetsializatsii suddiv: pryiniatyi na 13-omu plenarnomu zasidanni Konsultatyvnoi rady yevropeiskykh suddiv (Paryzh, 5–6 lystop. 2012 r.) [Opinion No. 15 (2012) of the Advisory Council of European Judges on the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the specialization of judges: adopted at the 13th plenary meeting of the CCJE] (USAID2015) Yevropeiski ta mizhnarodni standarty u sferi sudochynstva 156–166 (in Ukranian).
4. Marochkin I Ye, Moskvych L M, Porivnialne sudove pravo [Comparative judicial law] (Kharkiv, Pravo 2008) 19–20 (in Ukranian).
5. Moskvych L M, Efektyvnist sudovoi systemy: kontseptualnyi analiz [The effectiveness of the judicial system: conceptual analysis] (Kharkiv, FINN 2011) 368 (in Ukranian).
6. Urias Yu P, Tumanov V A, Ehorov S A y dr., Sudebnie systemi zapadnikh hosudarstv [The judicial systems of the western states] (Moscow, Nauka 1991) (in Russia).
7. Kozak D, ’Sud v sovremennom myre: problemы y perspektyv’ [The Court in the Modern World: Problems and Prospects] (2001) 9 Rossyiskaia yustytsyia 5–6 (in Russia).
8. Sibilova N V, ’Poriadok orhanizatsii ta diialnosti sudovoi vlady’ [Order of organizations and activities of the judiciary] Materialy seminaru Tsentr suddivskykh studii дата звернення 01.10.2018 (in Ukranian).
9. Shykhyta Y, ’Teoryia y praktyka pravovoi sudebnoi reformi’ [The theory and practice of the legal judicial reform] (1997) 10 Rossyiskaia yustytsyia 5 (in Ukranian).