Defining the differentiation of the land disputes jurisdiction beetween economic and administrative courts
Diametrically opposed viewpoints to the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities in land disputes are fixed at the level of judicial practice. In fact, now the subjects of economic relations choise a court for resolution of the dispute with regard to the conflict of positions given in the resolutions of the higher courts Plenums.
In the context of this study, land disputes will consider such unresolved conflicts arising from land relations on the origin, implementation, change or termination of land rights, their protection in connection with violation of rights and legitimate interests (or recognition) of such legal relations.
Despite the collision moments in the definition of the relevant jurisdictions of the courts it is necessary to consider such distinctive criteria: 1) subjective aspect (the composition of a particular judicial proceedings participants); 2) ontological characteristics associated with the essence of a land dispute; 3) legal criterion (relations regulated by legislation; definition of the provision in the law which provides for the solution of the dispute by the relevant court and absence of the rules that provide for the resolution of such dispute by a court of another jurisdiction); 4) causal criteria (the existence of a dispute on the right of the respective relations).
The solution of the corresponding situation can be considered in the imposition of the horizons of a particular person understanding (person filing a lawsuit in court and the judge who makes the decision on jurisdiction of a land dispute) on the horizons of understanding of the doctrinal and enforcement areas with the use of the hermeneutics backlog in the law.
In each case, in order to determine the nature of the disputed relations it is required to apply the provisions of the procedural codes on jurisdiction (theoretical research level) and then perform the monitoring of the judicial practice (empirical research level). After that it is necessary to repeat the research of the jurisdiction definition at a theoretical level (carrying out of logical thinking regarding the election of the necessary criteria, in particular on the nature of land disputes: public law, for example, free privatization of land plots by the citizens and private-legal, for example, the privatization of land through its sale on a competitive basis) and subsequently re-contact the empirical level (the actual submission of the claim in court).
It is appropriate to classify the jurisdiction of land disputes according to the criterion of the latter:
- Economic jurisdiction contesting the ownership (use) of land, restrictions and encumbrances of rights to land; the right to land share; legal regulation of payment for land; environmental stimulation of rational use of lands (benefits; compensation for the reduction in income due to temporary preservation of lands); land use for the intended purpose (in the framework of the paragrapf 66 of the Land code of Ukraine).
- The administrative jurisdiction – questions of legal liability for violation of land legislation; acquisition, transfer, termination of the ownership (use) of land plots; control in the sphere of land relations (determination of the boundaries of administrative and territorial units; the distribution and redistribution of lands; monitoring the use, reproduction and protection of lands; maintenance of the state land cadastre); the allocation of budget funds to restore degraded state of lands; legal support of land protection (protection from adverse natural and anthropogenic processes; conservation of agricultural lands).
On the basis of the above classification, where there is a management role and place of public interest, administrative courts have the competence of dispute resolution. At the same time, when decisions taken by government entities have public-legal character, relating to the ownership (use) of a land plot, the disputes shall be considered by economic courts.
Actually criterion should serve the public interest on the basis of the presence or absence of which it is possible to differentiate the administrative and economic jurisdiction. The public interest as a criterion for delimitation of land disputes jurisdiction between the administrative and economic courts concerns the political and material interests. In this field it is required to talk about the combination of public and territorial interest.
The public interest arises as a motivation position and objective resolute attitude of the individual, groups of individuals, society as a whole (social entities engaged in various public relations and cooperating with other parties) to the phenomena and objects of the surrounding reality that do not depend on the will of the subject (-s) the source of which is objectively existing social needs and ways to meet them so as to make possible a real usage of the object.
Definition of the case of administrative jurisdiction is given as a public legal dispute transferred on the decision of the administrative court in which at least one party is a body of executive authority, local authority, official or administrative official or other entity which carries out management functions on the basis of legislation, including the execution of delegated powers.
Proposals for ammendments to the legislation of Ukraine are specified in the article.
Teoriia derzhavy i prava : navch. posib. / [A. M. Kolodii, V. V. Kopieichykov, S. L. Lysenkov ta in.]; za zah. red. S. L. Lysenkova ta V. V. Kopieichykova. – K.: Yurinkom Inter, 2004. – 368 s.
Yurydychnyi slovnyk-dovidnyk: [za red. Yu. S. Shemshuchenka]. – K.: Femina, 1996. – 696 s.
Boer A., Hoebtra R., Winkels R. The CLIME Ontology / A. Boer, R. Hoebtra, R. Winkels // Second International Workshop on Legal Ontologies, December 13, 2001. – Amsterdam: Department of Computer Science & Law, Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, December 10, 2001. – P. 37–47.
Ukhvala Hospodarskoho sudu Dnipropetrovskoi oblasti: vid 26 hrudnia 2011 r. u spravi № 28/5005/17477/2011 [Elektronnyi resurs]. – Rezhym dostupu : http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/20269461.
Rishennia Hospodarskoho sudu Zakarpatskoi oblasti: vid 8 liutoho 2012 r.u spravi № 5008/6/2012 [Elektronnyi resurs]. – Rezhym dostupu : http://www.reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/21429862.
Smokovych M. Vyznachennia yurysdyktsii administratyvnykh sudiv ta rozmezhuvannia sudovykh yurysdyktsii : monohrafiia / M. Smokovych. – K. : Yurinkom Inter, 2012. – 304 s.
Rishennia Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy u spravi za konstytutsiinym podanniam Vyshchoho administratyvnoho sudu Ukrainy shchodo ofitsiinoho tlumachennia polozhen chastyny pershoi statti 143 Konstytutsii Ukrainy, punktiv "a", "b", "v", "h" statti 12 Zemelnoho kodeksu Ukrainy, punktu 1 chastyny pershoi statti 17 Kodeksu administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy: vid 1 kvitnia 2010 r. № 10-rp/2010 [Elektronnyi resurs]. – Rezhym dostupu : http://zakon1.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v010p710-10.
Urum V. Podvedomstvennost zemelnыkh sporov [Elektronnyi resurs] / V. Urum // Yuryst i Zakon. – 19–25 lypnia 2013 r. – № 49. – Rezhym dostupu : http://arzinger.ua/ua/press/publications/page-4/61983/.
Perepelytsia M. Publichnyi interes yak meta diialnosti sub’iektiv finansovoho prava / M. Perepelytsia // Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy : zb. nauk. prats. – 2009. – № 2. – S. 112–119.
Tykhomyrov Yu. A. Publychnoe pravo : uchebnyk / Yu. A. Tykhomyrov. – M.: BEK, 1995. – 496 s.
Kriazhnov A. V. Publychnыi ynteres: poniatye, vydы y zashchyta / A. V. Kriazhnov // Hosudarstvo y pravo. – 1999. – № 10. – S. 91–99.
Banchuk O. A. Publichne i pryvatne pravo: istoriia ukrainskykh vchen i suchasnist / O. A. Banchuk. – K.: Konus-Iu, 2008. – 184 s.
Postanova Plenumu Vyshchoho spetsializovanoho sudu Ukrainy z rozghliadu tsyvilnykh i kryminalnykh sprav «P deiaki pytannia yurysdyktsii zahalnykh sudiv ta vyznachennia pidsudnosti tsyvilnykh sprav»: vid 1 bereznia 2013 r. № 3 [Elektronnyi resurs]. – Rezhym dostupu : http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0003740- 13/print1378843214057257.