Res Judicata in Civil, Economic and Criminal Proceedings in Ukraine
Abstract
The need to improve the efficiency of the implementation of the tasks of the judiciary, which is associated with the improvement of evidentiary activities, the saving of procedural time, as well as the use of res judicata (also known as claim preclusion) in the process of proving, determines the relevance of the analysis of the use of res judicata in civil, economic and criminal proceedings in Ukraine. The purpose of the article is to study the legal category of ‘res judicata’ (claim preclusion), problems of the theory and practice of the application of claim preclusion and its use in the exercise of evidentiary activity in civil, economic and criminal process, as well as the study of the limits of the application of claim preclusion. The methodological base is comprised of such methods as the dialectical, the systematic analysis of legal norms, the comparative legal, and the logical-normative method. The study of the res judicata requires the implementation of mechanisms that ensure the impartiality of justice and the unity of the case law, providing analysis of the case law and common standards for the implementation of legal proceedings, the purpose of which is to protect the violated rights and freedoms of natural and legal persons, to improve the legislation in the direction of harmonization of normative-legal acts of national legislation with international standards.
References
[2] Berezhnyi, O.I. 2016. Significance of the circumstances established in the sentence and court order to close criminal proceedings in the resolution of other criminal proceedings. Journal of Eastern European Law 33: 11-20.
[3] Bezrukov, A.M. 2007. Claim preclusion connection of judicial acts. Moscow: Walters Clover. https://www.studmed.ru/bezrukov-am-preyudicialnaya-svyaz-sudebnyh-aktov_501865d0554.html.
[4] Code of Civil Procedure of Ukraine (as amended). 2004. Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1618-15.
[5] Constitution of Ukraine. 1996. Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80.
[6] Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (as amended) No. 4651-VII of April 13, 2012. 2012. Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17.
[7] Economic Procedure Code of Ukraine (as amended) No. 1798-XII of November 06, 1991. 1991. Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament). http://zakon0.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1798-12.
[8] Fatkullin, F.N. 1975. General problems of procedural evidence. Kazan: Kazan State University Publishing.
[9] Garnik, L.L. 2017. The use of res judicata when considering the claims of creditors in a bankruptcy case. European Perspectives 2: 116-119. http://ep.unesco-socio.in.ua/zmist-zhurnalu-yevropejski-perspektyvy-2-2017/ (accessed December 3, 2019).
[10] Groshovyi, Y., and Stakhivskyi, S. 2006. Evidence and evidence in criminal proceedings. Scientific and practical guide. Kyiv: CST, published by Fursa, S. Ya.
[11] Ishchenko, O. 2013. On the issue of claim preclusion of court acts in the economic process. Word of the National School of Judges of Ukraine 2: 65-72.
[12] Izarova, I., Vebrite, V., and Fleischer, R. 2018. Case Management in Civil Litigation: A Comparative Study of the Laws of Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine. Law of Ukraine 10: 129-146. https://pravoua.com.ua/ua/store/pravoukr/pravo_2018_10/pravo_2018_10_s07 /.
[13] Khotynska, O.Z. 2005. Res judicata as a manifestation of the bindingness of court decisions. Bulletin of the Academy of Advocates of Ukraine 4: 37-42.
[14] Kovalenko, A.K. 2018. Pre-assessment as the basis for exemption from evidence in the civil process of Ukraine. http://dspace.onua.edu.ua/bitstream/handle/11300/10075/11_%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE_401-403.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y/
[15] Levchenko, O. V. 1994. Well-known, prejudicially established and legally presumed facts and features of their use in criminal procedure evidence. Kazan: Kazan State University Publishing. https://www.dissercat.com/content/obshcheizvestnye-preyuditsialno-ustanovlennye-i-zakonom-prezyumiruemye-fakty-i-osobennosti-i.
[16] Mamontova, O.M. 2018. The nature and content of the circumstances recognized by the court as well-known as grounds for release from evidence in administrative proceedings. Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanities University. Jurisprudence 35(1) https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/648354.pdf.
[17] Masyuk, V.V. 2009. The court's judgment on the assessment of claim preclusion circumstances. Bulletin of the Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs 46: 212–218.
[18] Motovilovker, Ya. O. 1986. On the limits of judicial independence in establishing facts and applying law in a criminal case. Soviet state and law 5: 124–127.
[19] On the Judiciary and Status of Judges: Law of Ukraine of June 02, 2016 No. 1402-VIII. 2016. Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament). https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1402-19.
[20] Osipova, I.I. 2016. Grounds for exemption from proof by the legislation of foreign countries. University research notes 60: 66-73. http://www.univer.km.ua/visnyk/1598.pdf
[21] Petrukhina, I.L. 1973. Presumptions and claim preclusion in evidence. Moscow: Legal literature.
[22] Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of August 16, 2017 in Case No. 6-490ts17. 2017. LIGA:ZAKON. http://search.ligazakon.ua/l_doc2.nsf/link1/VS170594.html.
[23] Resolution of the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine of 07 September 2016 in Case No. 15/132-b. 2016. State Register of Court Decisions. http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/61195467.
[24] Resolution of the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine of 26 October 2016 in Case No. 904/10083/15. 2016. State Register of Court Decisions. http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/62300120.
[25] Resolution of the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine of April 26, 2016 in Case No. 27 / 25b-908/4661/14. 2016. State Register of Court Decisions. http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/57756321.
[26] Resolution of the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine of December 20, 2016 in Case No. 904/8028/14. 2016. State Register of Court Decisions. http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/63670130.
[27] Resolution of the Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine of February 22, 2017 in case No. 927/788/16. 2017. Legal portal Protocol. https://protocol.ua/ua/postanova_vgsu_vid_22_02_2017_roku_u_spravi_927_788_16/.
[28] Reznik, G.M. 1977. Inner belief in assessing evidence. Moscow: Legal literature.
[29] Schenk, O. 2018. Preliminary power of court decisions. https://lhs.net.ua/wp-content/uploads/woocommerce_uploads/2018/03/3_Preiudytsialna-syla-sudovykh-rishen.-Shenk-Olha-koordynator-sudovoi-praktyky-CMS.pdf.
[30] Shilin, D.V. 2013. Res judicata in criminal proceedings and the principle of free evaluation of evidence. Scientific notes of the Taurida National University named after V.I. Vernadsky 26(65): 317-321. http://www.juris.vernadskyjournals.in.ua/journals/2013/1_2013/51.pdf. (accessed December 24, 2019).
[31] Skoblikov, P.A. 2009. Prejudice of acts of arbitration courts in criminal proceedings: a new reading. Journal of Russian Law 2: 69–82.
[32] The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Sovtransavto-Holding v. Ukraine case (application no. 48553/99): Case, decision of 25 July 2002. 2003. Official Gerald of Ukraine 44: 321– 344.
[33] The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Tregubenko v. Ukraine case (Application No. 61333/00): Judgment of 02 November 2004. 2004. Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament). http://zakon3.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/980_355.
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.