CONCEPTS AND TYPES (METHODS) OF ABUSE OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS BY PARTICIPANTS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

Abstract

In order to fulfill the tasks of the research within the scope of this article, the concepts and types (methods) of abuse of procedural rights by the participants of the judicial proceedings have been clarified and the criteria for their classification have been identified. It has been established that the actions or inaction of a party to the case, which are characterized by a sign of apparent legal legitimacy, but are used for a purpose that is opposite or does not correspond to the one that should be pursued by the implementation of the corresponding procedural right or the fulfillment of the duty defined by law, can be recognized as an abuse of procedural rights or seizures; the essence of the abuse of the right consists in the commission of actions (inaction) by the authorized person, which make up the content of the right (obligation) granted by the procedural legislation, in bad faith, including contrary to the purpose of such a right or the deliberate use of the procedural right in a way that contradicts the task of administrative proceedings, with the aim of restricting the possibility of exercising the rights of other participants in the proceedings, obstructing the court's activity in correct and timely consideration and resolution of the case, unjustified overloading of the court's work or undermining trust in the judicial branch of government. Forms (types) of abuse of procedural rights are clearly established in procedural legislation, including the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Civil Code of Ukraine. It is established that a judge (college of judges) within the limits of his discretionary powers can recognize other actions of the participants in the judicial process, except those enshrined in the legislation as an abuse of procedural rights, if such actions are carried out intentionally, the conditions and procedure for their implementation are not provided for by the legislation, aimed at unreasonably delaying the judicial process process and creation of obstacles in the activity of the court on consideration of a specific case, therefore, the legal basis for the application of responsibility for their commission can be not only the norm (norms) of procedural legislation, but also a court decision, which is indicated by court decisions made taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.