Direct effect of the Constitution and implementation of its provisions in administrative justice

Keywords: decisions of constitutional justice, direct effect of the constitution, human rights, legal reasoning, review of judicial decisions, supremacy of the constitution

Abstract

The problem of direct effect of the Constitution is related to the some aspects of the systematics of sources of law in the legal
system of Ukraine in the pint of view of comparative law. Today, the processes of convergence in law continue. In the light of such
dynamics, there is a multilevel and pluralistic picture of the direct effect of the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine as a component
of its highest legal force. The resolution of human rights cases by courts is a complex case, as it refers to their excessive restriction by
law, which is not based on a sufficient legal basis. Constitutional justice is relevant to the practice of courts of general jurisdiction, as
it is often in acts of constitutional justice that the provisions of the constitution are interpreted.
The article is the disclosure of the direct action of the Constitution Ukraine in the exercise of administrative justice through the
implementation of its provisions in court decisions. The highest legal force of the Constitution is revealed through the lens of the components
of the reasoning of court decisions. Direct action has been analyzed as a component of the normative nature of the Constitution,
in particular because of the duty to protect of human rights and apply the principles of proportionality, as well as the correlation between
the legal force of the Constitution and the acts of the Constitutional Court. The implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional
Court in the activity of administrative courts, in particular through the system of reasoning of their decisions, is revealed. Based on a
holistic understanding of the Constitution, it is concluded that the duty to protect the state arises from the violation of its human (i.e.
body) human right by the agent and the main duty of the court is to restore such right in full.

References

1. Jaqueline R. Kanovitz. Constitutional Law. 12th ed. LexisNexis 2010. P. 35. [in English].
2. Alexy Robert. Balancing, constitutional review, and representation. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2005. No. 3. P. 3. [in English].
3. Giovanni Sartori. Constitutionalism: A Preliminary Discussion. The American Political Science Review. 1962, vol. 4(56). P. 853–864. [in English].
4. Duverger, M. La république des citoyens. Paris: Ramsay, 1982. [in English].
5. Mark Tushnet. Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Rights. Princeton University Press, 2008.; Alexy Robert. Balancing, constitutional review, and representation. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2005. No. 3. [in English].
6. Donald E. Bello Hutt. Against judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation. Revus [Online], 31 | 2017, Online since 01 June 2019, connection on 01 June 2019. URL: http:// journals.openedition.org/revus/3659 [in English].
7. Birmontene T., Yarashunas E., Spruognis E. General Report of the XIV Congress of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts. Constitutional justice. 2008. № 2 (40) -3 (41). S. 70–240. S. 71. [in English].
8. Birmontene T., Yarashunas E., Spruognis E. General Report of the XIV Congress of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts. Constitutional justice. 2008. № 2 (40) -3 (41). S. 70–240. S. 97. [in English].
9. Kahn, Paul W. The Court, The Community and the Judicial Balance: The Jurisprudence of Justice Powell. Yale L.J. 1987. Vol. 97. P. 1. [in English].
10. Waldron, Jeremy. Fake Incommensurability: A Response to Professor Schauer. Hastings L.J. 1994. Vol. 45. P. 819. [in English].
11. Sadurski Wojciech (ed.). Rights before Courts. A Study of Constitutional Courts in Postcommunist States in Central and Eastern Europe. Springer Publishing, 2005. P. 289. [in English].
12. Erwin Chemerinsky. In Defense of Judicial Supremacy, 58 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2017. No. 58. P. 1469 URL: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol58/iss5/3 [in English].
13. R v Secretagy of State or the Home Department, Ex Parte Bugdaycay [1987] AC 514, 531. [in English].
14. Alex Gewanter. Has Judicial Review on Substantive Grounds Evolved from Wednesbury towards Proportionality. Exeter L Rev 2017. Vol. 63. P. 63. [in English].
15. Donald E. Bello Hutt. Against judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation. Revus. 2017. Vol. 31. P. 2. [in Ukrainian].
16. Savchуn Mуkhailо. Comparative constitutional law. Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter, 2019. 328 p. S. 15. [in Ukrainian].
17. Alexander M. Bickel. The Least Dangeroud Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1962. P. 25-26. [in English].
18. Michael Taggart. Proportionality, Deference, Wednesbury. New Zealand Law Review. 2008. № 1–4. P. 448–450. [in English].
19. Tsakyrakis, Stavros. Proportionality: An assault on human rights? I•CON 2009. № 7(3). Р. 468-493. [in English].
20. Savchуn M. The main constitutional criteria for restricting human rights and fundamental freedoms. Elections and democracy. 2008. № 2. S. 21–28. [in Ukrainian].
21. R v Secretagy of Statefor Defence, exparte Smith and Grady [1996] QB 517, 547. [in English].
22. Lord Steyn. Democracy Through Law. EHRLR (2002) 723, 729. [in English].
23. Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [1999] UKHL 42; [2001] 1 AC 27. [in English].
24. Alexy Robert. Balancing, constitutional review, and representation. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2005. No. 3. P. 575. [in English].
25. Alexy Robert. Balancing, constitutional review, and representation. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2005. No. 3. P. 576–577. [in English].
26. Erwin Chemerinsky. In Defense of Judicial Supremacy, 58 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2017. No. 58. P. 1471 URL: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol58/iss5/3 [in English].
27. Donnelly Jack. Human rights in international politics. Lviv: Kalvariia, 2004. 280 p. [in Ukrainian].
28. Dworkin Ronald. About rights seriously. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2004. 392 p. S. 45-47. [in Russian].
29. Lothar Michael, Martin Morlok. Grundrechte. 6. Auflage. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2017. P. 51-52. [in English].
30. Unified state register of court decisions. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/ Review/88739736? [in Ukrainian].
31. Savchуn Mуkhailо. Human rights in the light of constitutional reform. Ukrainian Journal of International Law. Special issue: International law and the Constitution of Ukraine. 2015. S. 67-79. [in Ukrainian.].
Published
2020-11-10
How to Cite
Onishchuk, M., & Savchyn, M. (2020). Direct effect of the Constitution and implementation of its provisions in administrative justice. Law Review of Kyiv University of Law, 1(3), 419-426. Retrieved from https://chasprava.com.ua/index.php/journal/article/view/526