Адміністративна відповідальність за прояв неповаги до суду в Україні

Abstract

Дисертацію присвячено дослідженню змісту й особливостей адміністративної відповідальності за прояв неповаги до суду в Україні. Визначено генезис інституту адміністративної відповідальності за прояв неповаги до суду. Охарактеризовано нормативно-правові основи адміністративної відповідальності за прояв неповаги до суду. Доведено необхідність визнання шкідливих наслідків кваліфікуючими ознаками адміністративного правопорушення, передбаченого статтею 185-3 КУпАП. Запропоновано вироблення єдиних норм належної поведінки учасників судового процесу і присутніх під час судового засідання та їх закріплення у спеціальному нормативному акті. Розкрито юридичний склад адміністративного правопорушення, передбаченого статтею 185-3 КУпАП. Виявлено загальні засади провадження у справах про прояв неповаги до суду. Визначено процесуальний статус учасників провадження у справах про прояв неповаги до суду. Охарактеризовано та розкрито особливості стадій провадження у справах про прояв неповаги до суду. Узагальнено зарубіжний досвід правового регулювання притягнення до відповідальності за прояв неповаги до суду та визначено можливості його використання в Україні. Окреслено перспективні напрями удосконалення притягнення особи до адміністративної відповідальності за прояви неповаги до суду в Україні.

Диссертация посвящена исследованию содержания и особенностей административной ответственности за проявление неуважения к суду в Украине. Изучен генезис института административной ответственности за проявление неуважения к суду. Охарактеризованы нормативно-правовые основы административной ответственности за проявление неуважения к суду. Доказана необходимость признания вредных последствий квалифицирующими признаками административного правонарушения, предусмотренного статьей 185-3 КУоАП. Предложено разработать единые нормы должного поведения участников судебного процесса и присутствующих во время судебного заседания, а также закрепить их в специальном нормативном акте. Раскрыт юридический состав административного правонарушения, предусмотренного статьей 185-3 КУоАП. Выявлены общие принципы производства по делам о проявлении неуважения к суду. Определены процессуальный статус участников производства по делам о проявлении неуважения к суду. Охарактеризованы и раскрыты особенности стадий производства по делам о проявлении неуважения к суду. Обобщен зарубежный опыт правового регулирования привлечения к ответственности за проявление неуважения к суду и определены возможности его использования в Украине. Определены перспективные направления совершенствования привлечения лица к административной ответственности за проявления неуважения к суду в Украине.

The dissertation is focused on studying the content and specific features of administrative liability for direct contempt in Ukraine. Due to the retrospective analysis of the development of administrative and legal liability for direct contempt the author has defined the stages of development of the administrative liability institution for direct contempt. Based on the conducted analysis of the scientific literature, the author has offered the definition of the concept of “proceedings in cases on administrative offenses”. It has been found out that administrative liability for offenses in cases of direct contempt, taking into account the subject matter of legal regulation, is attributed to such offenses that encroach on the established management procedure. It has been established that the proceedings in the case of direct contempt have their own characteristics related to the sectoral specifics of the trial, as well as the possibility of issuing a decision to impose an administrative penalty without drawing up minutes in case of admission of guilt, while the formation and execution of materials on an administrative offense in cases on direct contempt is carried out according to general rules defined by regulatory legal acts and the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses taking into account the above characteristics. The author has substantiated the concept of “normative basis of administrative liability for direct contempt” and its differences from the concept of “normative ground for administrative liability for direct contempt”. It has been found out that the normative basis of administrative liability for direct contempt determines the introduction of corpus delicti of an administrative offense into the system of legal norms, which consists in the manifestation of direct contempt, determines the basic characteristics of the normative structure of this administrative offense (object, objective aspect, subject, subjective aspect). The corpus delicti of an administrative offense under the Art. 185-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses has been considered as a legal construction that combines subjective and objective features that collectively indicate the illegality of the action. It has been noted that the subjects of administrative offenses for direct contempt can be divided into general and special ones. It has been emphasized that an expert as a special subject of an administrative offense under the Art. 185-3 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses is liable solely for the contempt of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Based on the conducted analysis of the scientific literature, the author has suggested definition of the concept of “proceedings in cases on administrative offenses”. It has been established that the proceedings in the case for direct contempt have their own characteristics related to the sectoral specifics of the trial, as well as the possibility of issuing a decision to impose an administrative penalty without drawing up minutes in case of admitting the guilt by a person. It has offered to develop uniform norms of proper conduct for the participants of the trial and those present at the court hearing and to enshrine them in a special normative act entitled “Rules of conduct during court hearings and the trial”, which would cover all types of proceedings. It has been offered to amend the current legislation in order to differentiate and specify administrative liability for direct contempt. It has been clarified that the main stages of proceedings in cases on administrative offenses for direct contempt are: initiation of proceedings in the case on direct contempt, court proceedings, ruling, appeal against the decision in the case on direct contempt. It has been established that during the initiation of proceedings in cases on direct contempt, the judge while hearing the case performs functions of prosecution that are not peculiar to him. In this regard, the author has offered to amend the norms of procedural law, in particular on the need in these cases to transfer the case on direct contempt to a judge who is not a member of the court hearing the case in order to ensure the principle of impartiality. The author has carried out the analysis of the experience of legal liability for direct contempt or established court rules in the United States, Canada, France, Australia, Belgium, Poland, Great Britain, New Zealand, Ireland, India. That allowed us to form the ways of improving the current legislation of Ukraine. The author has singled out seven perspective areas for improving administrative liability for direct contempt, which include: consolidating the regulation of the procedure for bringing a person to administrative liability for direct contempt at the legislative level; ensuring the realization of the right to professional legal assistance; ensuring a fair and impartial trial by bringing another person to justice for insulting a judge by another judge; determining both the court room and the adjacent territory as the place of direct contempt; attributing publications, statements and interviews in the case before the court’s decision to the manifestations of direct contempt; preventing the return of materials on administrative offenses.