PROCEDURAL RESTRICTIONS ON CASSATION REVIEW IN CASES CONCERNING APPEALS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL ACTS

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive theoretical, legal and practical analysis of the procedural restrictions on cassation review in cases concerning appeals against individual acts issued by public authorities. The relevance of the study stems from the ongoing reform of Ukraine’s procedural legislation, aimed at optimising the work of the Supreme Court as a court of law, as well as the need to strike a balance between ensuring the right to cassation appeal and upholding the principle of res judicata. The overburdening of the court of cassation with minor, insignificant cases erodes the very essence of the highest court in the judicial system. At the same time, an important prerequisite for the introduction of cassation filters is the exemplary work of the courts of first and appeal instance. The main focus is on the analysis of the relevant ‘cassation filters’. The specific nature of the application of procedural restrictions is examined through the prism of the criteria for the insignificance of cases and the assessment of exceptional cases for the initiation of cassation proceedings. It is argued that strict filters are justified to relieve the burden on the judicial system; however, an excessive or formalistic approach may create risks of violations regarding access to justice and the right to a fair trial. The presence in the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine of vague and subjective categories such as ‘significant public interest’, ‘exceptional importance’ and ‘a matter of law of fundamental importance’ is not clear to appellants and leaves considerable scope for judicial discretion. At present, there are radically different approaches to the opening of cassation proceedings – there are judges who actively apply cassation filters, and there are judges who open cassation proceedings in the majority of cases, ignoring the shortcomings of the cassation appeal regarding the substantiation of the grounds for cassation; radically different approaches to resolving the issue of opening cassation proceedings (ranging from unfounded cassation review to refusal to open proceedings where grounds exist) undermine legal certainty and the principle of the rule of law. It is proposed to clarify the relevant procedural categories directly in the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, taking into account the established practice of the Supreme Court.