CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of the article is to determine the procedural consequences of noncompliancewith the rules of territorial jurisdiction (jurisdiction) in administrative proceedingsand to make recommendations aimed at improving legal regulation in this area. Methods. Generaland special methods are the theoretical and methodological basis of the study. With the help of theuniversal dialectical method the problems of determining in the procedural law the consequencesof violation of the rules of jurisdiction in administrative proceedings in their complexity andcontradictions are studied, as well as ways to improve legal regulation in this area. The use ofthe special-legal method and the method of system analysis, as well as the logical-legal method allowed to study the content of certain norms of administrative procedural legislation related tothe topic of work in their system connection.Results. It is noted that the territorial jurisdiction of administrative cases determines thejurisdiction between administrative courts of one level depending on the territory to which theirjurisdiction extends. It is proved that under the current administrative procedural legislation ofUkraine violation of the rules of territorial jurisdiction entails two consequences: 1) transfer ofthe case from one court to another in the established jurisdiction; 2) cancellation of the courtdecision at the stages of appellate and cassation proceedings with the referral of the case to thecourt of first instance in the established jurisdiction for a new trial.It is concluded that the existence of grounds for transferring the case to jurisdiction prevents theopening of proceedings. The correctness of the legislator’s refusal from such a consequence ofviolation of the rules of jurisdiction as the return of the claim is argued. It is pointed out that it isinexpedient to set deadlines for applying to the court with a request to transfer the case under theestablished jurisdiction. It is substantiated that consideration by the court of first instance of acase in violation of the rules of jurisdiction cannot be an independent ground for revoking a courtdecision on appeal and in cassation.Conclusions. It is proposed to provide at the legislative level that one of the conditions forinitiating proceedings in an administrative case is the absence of grounds for its transfer toanother court with established jurisdiction, the right of the parties to appeal the decision to refuseto transfer the case under separate jurisdiction. to refer the case under the rules of territorialjurisdiction to another court in case of recognition of the actions of the parties to the case,committed to change jurisdiction, abuse of procedural rights.
References
2. Zakon Ukrainy «Kodeks administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy» [The Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine] (2005). Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. no 35, / 35-36, 37. St. 446.
3. Myroniuk, R. V. (2019). Osoblyvosti sudovoho rozghliadu okremykh katehorii administratyvnykh sprav: navch. posibnyk [Features of judicial review of certain categories of administrative cases]. Dnipro : Dniprop. derzh. un-t vnutr. Sprav [in Ukrainian].
4. Zakon Ukrainy «Pro vnesennia zmin do Hospodarskoho protsesualnoho kodeksu Ukrainy, Tsyvilnoho protsesualnoho kodeksu Ukrainy, Kodeksu administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy ta inshykh zakonodavchykh aktiv» (2017) [Law of Ukraine «On amendments to the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine and other legislative acts»]. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. no 48. St. 436.
5. Duzinkevych, T.I. (2015). Povnovazhennia sudu pershoi instantsii tsyvilnoi yurysdyktsii [Powers of the court of first instance of civil jurisdiction] : dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk : 12.00.03. Ivano-Frankivsk [in Ukrainian].
6. Zadorozhna, A.P. (2019). Realizatsiia pravyl pidsudnosti tsyvilnykh sprav i naslidky yikh porushennia [Implementation of the rules of jurisdiction of civil cases and the consequences of their violation]. Sudova apeliatsiia, no 3(56). Pp. 7685.
7. Dzhavadov, Kh.A. (2018). Problemy efektyvnosti tsyvilnoho sudochynstva [Problems of efficiency of civil proceedings]. Kyiv : Vyd-vo «Yurydychna dumka» [in Ukrainian].
8. Zadorozhna, A.P. (2018). Pidsudnist u tsyvilnomu protsesi Ukrainy [Jurisdiction in the civil process of Ukraine] : dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk : 12.00.03. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
9. Zakon Ukrainy «Pro sudoustrii i status suddiv» (2010). [Law of Ukraine «Оn the judiciary and the status of judges». Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. no 41, / № 41-42; № 43; № 44-45. St. 529.
10. Belianevych, V.E. (2009). Hospodarskyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy : nauk.-praktych. komentar [Economic Procedural Code of Ukraine : scientific and practical commentary] / V.E. Belianevych. K. : Yustinian. [in Ukrainian]
11. Borisova, Ye.A. (1997). Apellyatsiya v grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom protsesse [Appeal in civil and arbitration proceedings]. Moskva : Gorodets. [in Russian]
12. Terekhova, L.A. (2008). The right to correct a judicial error as a component of judicial protection [The right to correct a judicial error as a component of judicial protection] : dis. … dr. jurid. sciences. Yekaterinburg. [in Russian]
13. Kernoz, N.Ie., Berdnik, I.V. (2014) Problemnist zakonodavchoho vrehuliuvannia pidsudnosti ta yii vydiv u natsionalnomu sudochynstvi [Problems of legislative regulation of jurisdiction and its types in national proceedings]. Molodyi vchenyi, no 11(14). Pp. 160–165.
14. Komarov, V.V ., Tertyshnikov, V.I. , Barankova, V.V. (2008). Problemy teorii ta praktyky tsyvilnoho sudochynstva: monohrafii [Problems of theory and practice of civil justice: a monograph]. Kharkiv : Kharkiv yurydychnyi. [in Ukrainian]
