Judicial Activism: A Logical or Intuitive Method of Applying Law

Olha Balynska^a, Marian Hurkovskyi^b, Halyna Savchyn^c, Oksana Onyshko^d, Oleksiy Kravchuk^e

Judicial Activism: A Logical or Intuitive Method of Applying Law*

DOI: 10.26350/18277942_000132

Summary: 1. Introduction. 2. Materials and Methods. 3. Results and  Discussion. 4. Conclusions.

1. Introduction

The main purpose of the judiciary is the administration of justice and the judicial protection of human rights. One of the critical issues of the authorities of any country is the trust of citizens in the state, namely in the judicial authorities. The authority of the judiciary and the judicial system in general largely depends on the activities of the judges themselves and their qualifications, as well as on the decisions they make. The procedural activity of all participants involved in the litigation is characterised by the presence of psychological, intuitive, and volitional actions[1]. Judges are no exception, wherein one of the guarantees of their activities is the right to judicial activism. It is the judge’s right to judicial activism in case of disagreement with the court’s decision that allows for improving the judicial system and ensuring the independence of his professional activity.

To strengthen and consolidate democratic values in society and improve mechanisms for protecting human rights and interests, the judicial system should function properly in each country. It is the judicial authorities who are entrusted with the function of protecting violated human rights. Proper implementation of judicial protection of human rights and effective functioning of judges in Ukraine is a condition for its democratic development, its establishment as a state governed by the rule of law and is a condition for approaching and integrating into the European Community[2]. Professor Joseph Weiler noted that one of the considerable advantages of a judge’s right to judicial activism is that judges have the opportunity to reason. He also noted that dissent often creates a paradoxical effect of legitimising the majority because it becomes apparent that alternative views were considered, even if they were eventually rejected[3].

Guarantees of judicial activity are consolidated in several international acts, which include the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (with protocols)[4], which occupies a prominent place. Among other guarantees of the judge’s activity, the Convention consolidates the right to judicial activism. Thus, according to Article 45 of the Convention, “if the decision in a case does not fully or partially express the unanimous opinion of the judges, each judge is entitled to engage in judicial activism”[5].

Consideration of any case in court ends with the adoption of a decision, which in turn establishes legal significant consequences. When making a decision, a judge must act according to the law and be guided by the regulatory framework that is necessary for making a fair and lawful decision. However, when making a decision, the judge also uses their inner conviction and logical thinking, which sometimes leads to problems, since an incorrectly made decision not only destroys people’s lives but also devalues the authority of the court and the entire judicial system. When engaging in judicial activism, the judge also uses not only the legal framework but also internal persuasion and logical methods. The use, when making a decision and expressing a dissenting opinion, merely of the regulatory framework, without any logical reasoning, can lead to the ineffectiveness of such judicial proceedings and the adoption of an unfair decision. It is to establish the role and essence of using logical and intuitive methods to express a separate opinion that the author conducted this study, as well as to establish how the use of these methods affects the effectiveness of judges, judicial review, strengthening the authority of the court and ensuring human rights.

The purpose of this study is to determine the role and purpose of the institution of “judicial activism” and to identify the methods used to express a separate opinion in case of disagreement with the decision taken in the case. The present study contributes to the field of legal science by addressing the crucial issue of a judge's right to engage in judicial activism, exploring the methods used to express a dissenting opinion when disagreeing with a court decision, and examining the role and purpose of the institution of "judicial activism" in ensuring the independence of judges.

The tasks that need to be solved within the framework of this study are as follows:

- definition of the essence and purpose of the institution of judicial activism;

- clarification of the specific features of the application of the right to judicial activism in different jurisdictions and processes;

- establishing the benefits of using the right to judicial activism;

- research of the purpose and essence of applying intuitive and logical methods upon engaging in judicial activism, and establishing the advantages and disadvantages of these methods.

2. Materials and Methods

The author employed several general and special methods to carry out effective research and perform the tasks and goals set. The use of a systematic method allowed for determining the specific features of the right to judicial activism as a guarantee of the independence of the professional activity of judges. The logical method and its means were applied in this study to justify and argue a particular opinion of the author.

One of the crucial methods used in this study is the dialectical method, which allowed analysing logical and intuitive methods involved in judicial activism and clarifying their role. In addition, this method allowed the establishment of the functions and appointment of the institution of judicial activism in the judicial system of Ukraine. A formal legal method of scientific cognition was used to reveal the specifics of the right to judicial activism in courts of general jurisdiction and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. This method also became the basis for clarifying regulations that establish the right to judicial activism as a guarantee of the activities of judges. Using the methods of synthesis and theoretical analysis, a study of scientific papers on legal regulation of exercising the right to judicial activism in case of disagreement with the court’s decision on the results of consideration of the case was conducted.

By using such methods of scientific knowledge as the laws of formal logic, and, accordingly, such methods as induction, deduction, and analysis, the essence and purpose of intuitive and logical methods for expressing a dissenting opinion are determined, as well as their role and negative features are analysed. Using the comparative legal method, the features of methods of engaging in judicial activism were studied, and the effective ones were singled out. The historical method was used to establish the establishment of the institution of judicial activism. The application of the modelling method allowed determining the main functions of the right to judicial activism.

In addition, the hermeneutical method was no less important method to investigate this subject, as it helped cover the essence of the terms used by the author during this study. The method of argumentation was used to justify the truth of some judgments using others. The method of system analysis and theoretical generalisation allowed for summarising the studies related to a dissenting opinion of the judge. The author used the hermeneutical method of research to establish the specific features of expressing a separate opinion in various judicial jurisdictions and processes, as well as the application of this right by judges of the European Court of Human Rights. Thanks to the synergetic method, the connection between a dissenting opinion and the internal conviction of a judge was investigated, as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of using a logical and intuitive method to express a dissenting opinion in case of disagreement or partial disagreement with a court decision. The author also used several philosophical methods, studies of researchers and specialists to carry out a complete and comprehensive investigation of this subject.

3. Results and Discussion

The institution of judicial activism in general, and as a right in particular, emerged in the judicial practice of Great Britain, where judges who collectively considered a court case did not make a single decision, but expressed each their own separate decision[6]. The right to judicial activism has been further legislatively consolidated in many democratic countries (Germany, the United States, Canada, etc.). In some countries, the dissenting opinion of judges was in the reasoning part, and some, it was published together with the decision on the case.

For the full and comprehensive implementation of the study, it is necessary to define the term “dissenting opinion”. “Dissenting opinion” should be interpreted as the legal position of the judge upon considering a case, i.e., the procedural form of the judge’s statement of disagreement with the decision in a particular case. In turn, “legal position” should be interpreted as a system of conclusions and arguments provided after assessing the factual situation, for a legal and fair settlement of the case.

The judge’s dissenting opinion is an integral tool in overcoming the “tyranny of the majority”, an important part of constitutional discourse, a form of dialogue with judges, lawyers, and society, both present and future, on important issues that have arisen in court proceedings[7]. In Ukraine, the “right to judicial activism” is governed by several national legal acts: the Law of Ukraine No. 1402-VIII “On the Judiciary and the Status of Judges”[8], the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine[9], the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine[10], the Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine[11], the Law of Ukraine No. 2136-VIII “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine”[12] and international acts, among which the main place is occupied by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms[13].

The judges’ right to judicial activism is one of the guarantees of their independence and a safeguard against any influence on the activities of a judge. In addition, the right to judicial activism allows the judges to freely express their consent or dissent with the court’s decision in full or in part. However, a dissenting opinion has both positive and negative sides. The positive side is expressed in the implementation of the principle of transparency and openness, which acts as a means of informing people about people’s activities and ensures the independence of judges. Among the positive signs, the judge’s expression of a dissenting opinion may help correct errors in the decision made and may also help prevent these errors in the future[14]. In turn, the negative aspects of the right to judicial activism are that judicial activism and the resulting opinion, which does not coincide with the decision of other judges and contradicts it, can shake the authority of the court and cause a desire not to comply with such a court decision.

Researchers and lawyers divide judicial activism into two types: a dissenting opinion of agreement and a dissenting opinion of disagreement[15]. Thus, a dissenting opinion of agreement should be interpreted as the joining of a judge to the opinion of other judges, although the former has the right to independently express their opinion on the case in the reasoning part of the decision[16]. In turn, a dissenting opinion of disagreement should be interpreted as a judge’s disagreement with the position and opinion of another judge.

The institution of a dissenting opinion of a judge serves multiple functions that are essential for the legal system. Firstly, when a judge expresses a dissenting opinion in disagreement with a court decision, it has the potential to become the majority opinion among the judges involved. This highlights the importance of diverse perspectives and ensures a thorough examination of the legal issues at hand. Secondly, a dissenting opinion can play a crucial role in identifying errors and inconsistencies in legislation, thereby contributing to its refinement and improvement. By pointing out shortcomings in the legal framework, judges can advocate for necessary changes and enhance the overall quality of laws. Moreover, the expression of a dissenting opinion by a judge is instrumental in enhancing their professional expertise and maintaining the independence of their actions. By openly expressing their disagreement, judges demonstrate their commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness, even when their views differ from the prevailing consensus. This contributes to the continuous development of their knowledge and skills, furthering their effectiveness as judicial authorities. Lastly, a dissenting opinion has the potential to drive improvements in legislation and promote the integrity of judges as a whole. By offering alternative viewpoints and challenging prevailing interpretations, judges contribute to the evolution and refinement of the legal system, ultimately fostering a more just and equitable society[17]. The judge’s right to judicial activism as a way of expressing his or her full or partial consent to a court decision exists both in the Constitutional Court and in courts of general jurisdiction. Therefore, the author, within the framework of this study, analyses the right to judicial activism in these courts, and in each process: criminal, civil, economic, etc.

The main regulation governing the civil procedure of Ukraine is the Civil Procedural Code of Ukraine[18]. Thus, Article 35 of this code stipulates the right to judicial activism if the judge does not agree with the court’s decision. A dissenting opinion is open for review and is attached to the case, which is reported to the participants in the case. Assigning the right to judicial activism ensures not only the guarantee and independence of the judge’s activities but also allows him or her to develop and reason logically.

The Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine[19] states that in the case of litigation conducted by three judges, the judge who took part in the consideration of the case, and who does not agree with the decisions taken, has the right to express a dissenting opinion. The right to judicial activism is also consolidated in the criminal procedure. Thus, according to the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine[20], every judge who considers criminal cases is entitled to judicial activism. Such an opinion is expressed in writing and is not announced at the court session but is attached to the case file and is open for review.

Legal acts that specify the rules for guaranteeing judges the right to judicial activism are contained in the legislation of many European countries. In most cases, the constitutional courts apply this right. According to the judicial practice of Ukraine, it is the judges of the Constitutional Court who most frequently engage in judicial activism on a particular issue that is the subject of judicial proceedings. Although the dissenting opinion of a judge of the Constitutional Court is not binding and does not create legal consequences, it still plays an essential role in the legal and judicial system of Ukraine. Among researchers and lawyers, opinions were expressed regarding the judge’s disagreement with the conclusions and decisions of other judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Supporting their statements, researchers noted the following: “The more individual opinions that do not coincide with the court’s decision, the more controversial such a movement is, and the lesser its regulatory force will be in the future”[21]. A. Shulima, regarding the appointment and legal role of the right to a dissenting opinion of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, noted: “a dissenting opinion of a judge of the Constitutional Court, considering the specific features of cases considered by this court, can both relate to doctrinal issues that were not properly considered by the court, or contain the motivation of the decision taken, and have a certain political and legal significance”[22].

The right to a dissenting opinion of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is prescribed in the Law of Ukraine No. 2136-VIII “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine”[23] and in the Constitution of Ukraine[24]. Thus, according to the Constitution of Ukraine (1996)[25], judges of the Constitutional Court are guaranteed independence and inviolability. It is from the guarantees of independence that each judge is assigned the right to a dissenting opinion if the decision-making process has not eliminated differences in the opinions of judges and the judge does not agree with the decision or with its arguments. The Law of Ukraine No. 2136-VIII “On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine”[26] regulates the order and procedure for accepting and publishing a judge’s dissenting opinion, which fully defines and assigns this right to each judge. Thus, a judge of this court has the right, regardless of how he or she voted when making a decision, to engage in judicial activism within seven days together with the published decision on the case. The dissenting opinion of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, although not binding, is of great doctrinal importance and acts as a factor that allows judges to improve their qualification level and professionalism.

A dissenting opinion of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is formed and expressed using the legislative framework used to make a decision that is made by the court. In addition, the expression of a dissenting opinion contains an internal belief, which is formed on professional experience and professional skills, as well as through the use of logic. Logic plays an essential role in justifying one’s position on a particular issue, since the use, along with the legislative framework, of formal laws of logic allows fully proving one’s position of disagreement with the decision taken, and possibly contribute to its revision to make a fairer and legitimate decision and establish the rule of law. As for the use of the intuitive method upon expressing a dissenting opinion, it can be noted that this method is based mainly on the use of intuition, which does not give effective results in the activities of this judicial body, since it can lead to subjectivity according to the personality of the judge. Notably, the main task of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, unlike the courts of general jurisdiction, is to establish the legality of regulations, and decisions taken by this judicial body should be legal and not contain subjectivity and bias.

Within the framework of this study, the author analysed the judicial activism of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Thus, the judge of the Constitutional Court I. Slidenko[27] engaged in judicial activism on “the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the Supreme Court regarding the compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (constitutionality) of certain provisions of the resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On the establishment of quarantine to prevent the spread on the territory of Ukraine of acute respiratory disease COVID-19, caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, and the stages of easing anti-epidemic measures”, the provisions of Parts 1, 3 of Article 29 of the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2020”[28], Clause 9, Article 2, Section II “Final Provisions” of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On the State Budget of Ukraine for 2020”“[29]. In this dissenting opinion, the judge expressed the position on the imposed quarantine restrictions and their consequences. He noted as follows: “as a general result, the blurring and lack of clear quarantine criteria can lead to a situation where quarantine or its individual elements with all restrictions can become an organic part of the existence of the Ukrainian state. Moreover, it is now exactly the reason it is convenient to write off any problems – from the fall of the economy to the emergency powers of the President of Ukraine, including problems created by a specific Ukrainian government. Such governance has everything but law, justice, and morality”[30].However, according to the author of this study, this dissenting opinion is more subjective and not fully justified.

Notably, in the constitutional judicial bodies of most countries of the world, judges are granted the right to judicial activism. These countries include the Republic of Poland, Germany, Estonia, the Republic of Latvia, The Republic of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, etc.[31]. However, the right to judicial activism of judges of constitutional jurisdiction is different in each country. According to the practice of the UK constitutional judiciary, there are “separate decisions” according to which judges have the right to judicial activism. Thus, based on the results of the consideration of a court case, each judge can express their dissenting opinion, and in this regard, a separate court decision can be made. In the United States of America, there is also an institution of judicial activism, as a guarantee of the work of judges. US Supreme Court Justice John Roberts noted a decrease in the role of this law, justifying this by saying that the dissenting opinion of the courts are “symptoms” that undermine the authority of the judicial authorities because the court will be more effective in resolving court cases if it speaks “as one”[32].

The right to a separate judge exists not only in Ukraine but alsof in other countries of the world. One of the key judicial bodies, whose jurisdiction extends to almost all European countries, is the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR). The main legal act of this Court is the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms[33]. Thus, this convention states that if the decision in a case does not express a unanimous opinion, then the judge has the right to express his/her dissenting opinion. In addition, the right to judicial activism of the ECHR court is prescribed in the rules of the ECHR, according to which a judge who participated in the consideration of a case has the right to express his/her dissenting opinion and attach it to the decision[34]. Unlike the Ukrainian practice of judicial activism, the decision taken by the ECHR indicates whether the dissenting opinion is agreement or disagreement.

The basis for expressing a dissenting opinion by judges of the ECHR is their internal conviction. Thus, the inner conviction of the judges of this Court is manifested in a strong and well-established opinion, faith and conviction in their professional activities. The main purpose of the ECHR is to protect violated human rights, and accordingly, for this purpose, ECHR judges are entitled to judicial activism. Thus, to express a dissenting opinion, in case of disagreement or partial disagreement with the court’s decision, the judge uses the adopted regulatory framework, logical methods and intuitive methods, since effective protection of guaranteed human rights and the adoption of a fair decision takes place through means and techniques of logic, the use of intuition and legal acts.

An example of the application of the right to judicial activism by the ECHR judge is the case “F.G. v. Sweden”[35]. The case concerned illegal migration to Iran. The applicant argued that such actions would result in a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention[36]. Thus, in this case, several judges expressed their dissenting opinions on the results of consideration of the case. Judge Bianca and Ederblom exercised the right to judicial activism. Judge Ederblom’s judicial activism was both one that expressed agreement and disagreement with the court’s decision and was expressed and documented in cooperation with Judge Spano[37].

Investigating the question of whether the judge’s dissenting opinion is an intuitive or logical method of applying the law, the author found the following. When deciding on a case, the judge should be guided by the norms of the law, but there are cases when, based on the circumstances of the case, the judge should also use logical reasoning and intuitive application of law, while not succumbing to emotions. In any case, the judge’s dissenting opinion should be expressed and stated according to the legislation of Ukraine.

The judge’s belief combines the psychological, moral, and strong-willed qualities of the judge who expresses it. It most convincingly confirms that not only is evidence in a case evaluated by judges based on their internal beliefs, but procedural decisions are also made according to this basic requirement of legal proceedings[38]. The legal and factual basis for forming a decision on a case must be consistent with the internal belief and logical method of reasoning, which also affect the judge’s expression of a dissenting opinion on the case.

The activity of judges and their decision-making on the case must comply with the established legislation of Ukraine, but along with the application of the regulatory framework, judges also use logical methods that allow them to fully consider the case and make a fair decision. A dissenting opinion, albeit without mandatory significance and the parties to the process are not authorised to adhere to it, however, this right of judges allows ensuring the rule of law in Ukraine and establishing guarantees for the professional activity of judges, in particular their independence. If the use of logical methods in the implementation of judges’ activities, including expressing a dissenting opinion, is one of the foundations of their activities, then the intuitive method presents certain difficulties and causes controversy. When using the intuitive method to make decisions and express individual opinions, judges use their intuition, which can adversely affect the legality and fairness of a court decision. Thus, the experience, knowledge, and qualification skills of a judge allow for making logical and legal decisions and moving from an intuitive to a logical method, which is also used when expressing a dissenting opinion[39].

When a judge expresses a dissenting opinion, stemming from a disagreement with a court's decision, it is rooted in their internal conviction. This internal conviction represents the judge's inherent need to utilize their knowledge, perspectives, and opinions. Interpreted as a multifaceted intellectual process, the judge's internal conviction aims to establish truth within a legal case. It encompasses conscious and unwavering confidence in determining the truth and readiness to render a decision. The judge's cognitive activity underpins this persuasion, which is employed during direct judicial review, decision-making, and the expression of a dissenting opinion—a right granted to judges to safeguard their independence. The judge's cognitive activity is characterized by a combination of professionalism, qualifications, knowledge, experience, psychological and volitional qualities, and the application of logical and analytical thinking. Intuitive methods prove to be largely ineffective, both in decision-making and expressing a dissenting opinion, as the fairness and legality of court proceedings and case decisions, along with their execution, hinge on the judge's legal position.

When engaging in judicial activism, the judge overwhelmingly uses logical methods, since the intuitive method is ineffective as it depends on the personality of such a judge. In addition, the logical methods that can be used by a judge to express a dissenting opinion, in case of disagreement or partial disagreement with the court’s decision, include methods of analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, generalisation, analogy, etc. It can be argued that endowing the judges with the right to judicial activism guarantees their independence and professionalism. Furthermore, this right helps identify errors in legislation, and accordingly correct them through legislative authorities, and increases the level of effective protection of human rights and fair decision-making. Although the dissenting opinion of a judge is not binding, its existence and the guarantee of this right help improve the judicial system.

4. Conclusions

The study focused on investigating the institution of judicial activism and the use of logical and intuitive methods in exercising this right, leading to several key findings. It was established that a dissenting opinion represents a judge's legal position, serving as a procedural expression of disagreement with a specific case decision. This right is recognized and upheld at both national and international levels.Ensuring the right to judicial activism acts as a safeguard for the independence of judges' professional activities and provides an opportunity to enhance legislation and rectify errors, thereby effectively protecting human rights. The application of judicial activism in various jurisdictions, including general courts, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and the European Court of Human Rights, was analyzed, revealing both positive and negative aspects. Negative aspects include the potential undermining of a court's authority and the resistance to compliance with dissenting opinions that contradict majority decisions. Conversely, positive features encompass independence, transparency, error correction, effective protection of violated rights, and improvements in the legislative framework.

Based on the study's results, it can be concluded that the logical method takes precedence over the intuitive method in forming and expressing dissenting opinions. Utilizing logical techniques allows judges to effectively ascertain case circumstances, consider the essence of the matter, and express dissenting opinions. This approach positively impacts not only the judicial process but also the overall judicial system and the authority of judicial bodies.

Abstract: The relevance of this study lies in the need for a thorough investigation of the judge’s right to judicial activism in case of disagreement or partial disagreement with a court decision, as a guarantee of the independence of their activities, as well as the definition of methods used upon engaging in judicial activism, namely a logical or intuitive method, to establish the role and purpose of this institution in the legal system of Ukraine. The purpose of this study is to determine the role and purpose of the institution of “judicial activism” and to identify the methods used to express a separate opinion in case of disagreement with the decision taken in the case. The methods used to investigate the subject include comparative method, legal recognition method, dialectical method, formalisation method, logical legal method, historical method, system method, axiomatic method, hermeneutical method, synthesis and analysis method, and others. During the study, the main concepts and terms used in this paper were defined; the study established the purpose and allocation of functions of the right to judicial activism as a guarantee of the independence of judge’s activities; determined the features of the institution of judicial activism; studied the role of intuitive and logical methods in expressing a separate opinion in case of disagreement with the court’s decision; compared these methods and determined their features and their application when using the right to judicial activism. In addition, the author investigated the application of the right to judicial activism in courts of general jurisdiction, in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and courts of international jurisdiction, including the European Court of Human Rights; compared the use of logical and intuitive methods upon engaging in judicial activism; identified problems and contradictions in the use of these methods and identified their negative aspects. The provisions set out in this paper are of practical value for employees of judicial bodies, namely judges, in the performance of their professional activities.

Keywords: Court decision - Constitutional Court of Ukraine - courts of general jurisdiction – disagreement – independence - judicial activism

^a Lviv State University of Internal Affairs (olhabalynska12@ukr.net).

^bLviv State University of Internal Affairs

^cLviv State University of Internal Affairs

^dLviv State University of Internal Affairs

^eNational Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”.

* Il contributo è stato sottoposto a double blind peer review.

[1] V. Horodovenko, A separate opinion of the judge as creative comprehension of the subject of constitutional proceedings, in Public Law, 1(37) (2020), pp. 12-15.

[2] V. Klyuchkovych, Theoretical and legal characteristics of law enforcement activities of the judiciary, Dnipro, 2021, pp. 35-66 ss.

[3] G. De Búrca – J. H. H. Weiler, The European Court of Justice, New York, 2001, pp. 87-90ss.

[4] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004#Text (Accessed 23. 09. 2022).

[5] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004#Text cit. (Accessed 23. 09. 2022).

[6] T. Khmaruk, Legal nature of a separate opinion of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, in National Legal Journal: Theory and Practice, 2017 (2017), pp. 40-44.

[7] O. Voddyanikov, The role of dissenting opinion of the judge in development constitutional jurisprudence, in Bulletin of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 3(86) (2016), pp. 15-22.

[8] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1402-19#Text (Accessed 28. 06. 2022).

[9] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17#Text (Accessed 23. 07. 2022).

[10] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1618-15#Text (Accessed 26. 08. 2022).

[11] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1798-12#Text (Accessed 23. 07. 2022).

[12] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2136-19#Text (Accessed 28. 06. 2022).

[13] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004#Text cit. (Accessed 23. 07. 2022).

[14] M. Spodaryk, Comparative legal study of the phenomenon of dissenting opinion of a judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the European Court of Human Rights, in Legal Scientific Electronic Journal, 5 (2018), pp. 29-31.

[15] M. Spodaryk, Comparative legal study of the phenomenon of dissenting, cit.,pp. 29-31.

[16] V. P. Singh, Judicial Activism as an Essential Tool for the Protection and Expansion of Human Rights in India, in Kutafin Law Review, 10(1) (2023), pp. 88-109.

[17] V. Naifleish, On the consequences of presenting a dissenting opinion of a judge of the Commercial Court, in Rule of Law, 22 (2016), pp. 65-67.

[18] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1618-15#Text cit. (Accessed 24. 04. 2022).

[19] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1798-12#Text cit. (Accessed 24. 05. 2022).

[20] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17#Text cit. (Accessed 21. 02. 2022).

[21] I. Slidenko, Interpretation of the Constitution of Ukraine: issues of theory and practice in the context of world experience, Odesa, 2001, pp. 34-54 ss.

[22] T. Khmaruk, Legal nature of a separate opinion of a judge, cit.,pp. 40-44.

[23] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2136-19#Text cit. (Accessed 23. 03. 2022).

[24] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text (Accessed 09. 09. 2022).

[25] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80#Text cit. (Accessed 20. 07. 2022).

[26] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2136-19#Text cit. (Accessed 23. 03. 2022).

[27] I. Slidenko, Interpretation of the Constitution of Ukraine, cit., pp. 34-54.

[28] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/nc10d710-20#Text (Accessed23.03.2022).

[29]https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/nc10d710-20#Textcit.(Accessed 24.05.2022).

[30]https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/nc10d710-20#Textcit.(Accessed28.03.2022).

[31] T. Khmaruk, Legal nature of a separate opinion of a judge, cit.,pp. 40-44.

[32] T. Khmaruk, Legal nature of a separate opinion of a judge, cit., pp. 40-44.

[33] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004#Text cit. (Accessed 23. 03. 2022).

[34] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/980_067#Text (Accessed 23. 03. 2022).

[35] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-140020%22]} (Accessed 24. 07. 2021).

[36] https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004#Text cit. (Accessed 24. 07. 2021).

[37] https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-140020%22]} cit. (Accessed 24. 07. 2021).

[38] http://surl.li/jfvqc (Accessed 14. 07. 2022).

[39] O. Kopytova, Judicial decisions as a result of law enforcement activities of the court: general provisions, Judicial system; prosecution and advocacy, in Scientific Bulletin of Public and Private Law, 2 (2020), pp. 255-260.