Administrative responsibility for infants in the context of modern justice (based on the ruling of the Lutsk city district court of Volyn region dated September 20, 2018, case № 161/11006/18)

Keywords: disrespect to the court, rules of conduct in court, appearance, dress-code


The purpose of this publication is a scientific analysis of the decision of the Lutsk city district court of Volyn region of September 20, 2018 on bringing a person to administrative liability under Art. 185-3 Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (manifestation of disrespect to the court).

The methodological basis of the presented scientific analysis is a systematic approach, system analysis.

Results. The peculiarities of the objective side of such an administrative offense as a manifestation of disrespect to the court are analyzed, emphasis was placed on the obligatory observance of the courts, when considering this category of cases, the requirements of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The attention is focused on certain defects of the structural construction of the disposition of the first part of this article, the estimated and subjective nature of its individual elements. Separately, attention is drawn to the issue of the need for interference with the rights of individuals to self-individuality, in the aspect of modern justice.

Conclusions. It is concluded that the appearance of an individual is not only clothing. Along with the freedom to choose clothes, another presentation of self-expression is the public presentation of one’s own body. Piercing, tattoos, haircuts, hair dyeing – all this is the exercise of the person’s right to manifest his identity, on the one hand, and the realization of the right to personal integrity – on the other.

It is proved that the current legislation does not contain normative requirements regarding the appearance of the visitors of the court, there are local rules of conduct in the courts, are strictly recommendatory and their violation can not be the basis for bringing persons to any kind of legal responsibility, including administrative under art. 185-3 Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. The judicial practice of the US courts in the aspect of the proposed problem is analyzed, concrete examples are given.

It has been stressed that contempt of the court is the concept of over-broadcaster. This is a large range of actions and actions of both process participants and listeners that prevent judges from conducting a trial or displaying a disparaging attitude to justice or justice.

Disrespect for the court may be incorrect behavior of those present in the hall, offensive language regarding the court, disobedience to the court, disrespectful attitude to court remarks, rudeness, exclamations. For such behavior the judge has the right to punish, but this is, in fact, the right, not the duty of the judge.


Unified State Register of Court Decisions (2018). Postanova Lutskoho miskraionnoho sudu Volynskoi oblasti vid 20 veresnia 2018 r. u spravi № 161/11006/18 [Regulation of the Lutsk Migration Court of the Volyn region from September 20, 2018, u spravi № 161/11006/18]. Retrieved from:

Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (1984). Kodeks Ukrainy pro administratyvni pravoporushennia: Zakon Ukrainy vid 7 hrudnia 1984 r. № 8073-X [Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses: Law of Ukraine dated December 7, 1984 No. 8073-X]. Retrieved from:

Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (2005). Kodeks administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy: Zakon Ukrainy vid

lypnia 2005 r. № 2747 [Code of Administrative Legal Proceedings of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine dated July 6, 2005 No. 2747]. Retrieved from:

Kolomoiets, T.O., Kalashnyk, Yu.V. (2013). Problemy ta perspektyvy udoskonalennia vidpovidalnosti za proiav nepovahy do sudu [Problems and prospects for improving liability for disrespect to the court]. Administratyvne pravo i protses, no. 2(3), pp. 73–82.

(2017). Opublikovany pravila povedeniia posetitelei v zdanii suda [Published rules of conduct for visitors in the courthouse]. Sudebno-iuridicheskaia gazeta “SUD INFO”. Retrieved from:

Komarov, V.V. (ed.) (2016). Tsyvilne sudochynstvo Ukrainy: osnovni zasady ta instytuty: monohrafiia [Civil justice of Ukraine: basic principles and institutions: monograph]. Kharkiv: Pravo. [in Ukrainian].

Bratel, O.H. (2016). Protsesualni yurydychni fakty v konteksti nepravomirnykh dii (bezdiialnosti) uchasnykiv tsyvilnykh protsesualnykh pravovidnosyn [Procedural legal facts in the context of unlawful actions (inaction) of participants in civil procedural legal relations]. Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo, no. 7, pp. 4–14.

Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (1997). Konventsiia pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod: mizhnarodnyi dokument Rady Yevropy vid 4 lystopada 1950 r. (ratyfikovano Zakonom Ukrainy № 475/97-ВР vid 17 lypnia 1997 r.) [Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: an international document of the Council of Europe of November 4, 1950 (ratified by the Law of Ukraine No. 475/97-ВР of July 17, 1997)]. Retrieved from:

Shebanova, N.A. (2017). Sovremennyi vneshnii oblik individuuma: svoboden li vybor? [The modern appearance of the individual: is the choice free?]. Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava Rossiiskoi akademii nauk, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 176–196.

(2014). Shcho odiahty u sud? Problema serioznisha, nizh zdaietsia [What to wear in court? The problem is more serious than it seems]. Yurydychnyi daidzhest. Retrieved from:

(2000). Hodge v. Lynd. 88 F. Supp. 2d 1234 (D.N.M. 2000). Retrieved from:

(2002). Gatto v. County of Sonoma. 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). Retrieved from:

How to Cite
Holoborodko, D. (2019). Administrative responsibility for infants in the context of modern justice (based on the ruling of the Lutsk city district court of Volyn region dated September 20, 2018, case № 161/11006/18). Administrative Law and Process, (4(23), 46-57.