Models of constitutional enshrinement of the functions of the judiciary: national trends and international experience

Keywords: Constitution of Ukraine, Constitution of Greece, Constitution of Austria, judiciary, functions of the judiciary, function of justice, principles of the judiciary


The article analyzes the basic concepts of constitutional enshrinement of the functions of the judiciary on the basis of the effective legislation of Ukraine and of the constitutions of foreign countries. Particular attention is paid to the principles of functioning of the judiciary and the correlation of the functions of the judiciary with other branches of state power. It is stated that the judiciary is independent, that is, no official, no representative of the legislature or of the executive, no top-ranking official can order a judge to act in any way. Thus, the specificity of the judiciary is that, acting, so to speak, "on the side of the state" (as the bodies of the judiciary, of course, belong to a single and integral system of public authorities), their activity is subordinated not to interests of the state, but only to law as the highest value regulating state and public relations, as well as the processes of interaction between society and the state. But this does not mean that justice process is self-regulating when judges set rules, rights and obligations for themselves. Therefore, there is no doubt that the rule of law imposes on the legislature the obligation of developing basic provisions on justice, the judiciary and the status of judges. Thus, one can say that the status of judges, their powers, rights, etc. in Ukraine (as in most countries of the world) are governed by laws, normative legal acts adopted by the Ukrainian parliament. In addition to the influence of legislators on the activities of judges and on functioning of justice, we should point on the involvement of the executive and of the head of state in this process. It is concluded that the constitutional enshrinement of the functions of the judiciary stipulates, first of all, the existence of a clear constitutional and legal definition and establishment of the place of justice in the system of other state functions. On the one hand, it is hardly reasonable to question that the concept of separation of powers does not in any way deny the idea of ​​the integrity of this power. In fact, state power, despite its separation, is essentially single. At the same time, the judiciary, unlike other state functions and bodies closely linked to a wide network of powers and relevant mutual influence, is organizationally autonomous.


Humennyi, O.I. (2016). Sudova vlada yak arbitr mizh derzhavoiu ta suspilstvom. Chasopys Natsionalnoho universytetu «Ostrozka akademiia». Seriia «Pravo». 2 (14). URL: [in Ukrainian].
Podorozhna, T.S., Biloskurska, O.V. (2018). Spravedlyve pravosuddia yak meta diialnosti sudovoi vlady. Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava. 4 [in Ukrainian].
Okun’kov, L.A. (red.) (2001). Konstitucii gosudarstv Evropy: v 3 t. Moskva: NORMA. T. 1 [in Russian].
Mychko, M.I. (2001). Prokuratura yevropeiskykh derzhav postsotsialistychnoi systemy. Donetsk: DIVS [in Ukrainian].
Kuzov, V.T. (red.) (2001). Konstytutsiia Ukrainy i demokratychne suspilstvo: shliakhom reformy. Dnipropetrovsk: «Presa-S» [in Ukrainian].
How to Cite
Polianskyi, A. (1). Models of constitutional enshrinement of the functions of the judiciary: national trends and international experience. Law Review of Kyiv University of Law, (2), 92-95.
Constitutional law. Municipal law