Укр Eng
+380 (44) 278-58-91
Pravova derzhava. <span>Scientific articles yearbook</span>
  1. Home
  2.  ⇒ 
  3. “Pravova derzhava”. Issue 35 (2024)
  4.  ⇒ 
  5. Restrictions on the State in the Application of the Mechanism of the State Interests Protection: Some Theoretical Issue

“Pravova derzhava”. Issue 35 (2024), pages 180–191.

DOI: 10.33663/0869-2491-2024-35-180-191

Kubko Andrii
Restrictions on the State in the Application of the Mechanism of the State Interests Protection: Some Theoretical Issue

The article addresses the issues of the restrictions on the state power in its application of the legal mechanism of the protection of the state interests. The protection of the interests of the state is an objective necessity as well as an obligation of the state. Lack of eff ectiveness of the protection of those interests is able to considerably reduce the effi ciency of or to render impossible the achievement of the objectives of the state of the protection of the society and the basics of the constitutional system. Concurrently, the state measures which are applied by the state in the state interests are capable of being accompanied by the interference with the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of humans and citizens, of private persons and pose a risk of arbitrariness, violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms as well as incompatibility with the international undertakings of the state. The issue of the restrictions on the state power in its application of the legal machinery of the protection of the state interests is therefore of special relevance. The state, when implementing the measures aimed at realization and securing of the state interests, be it at the legislative, administrative or judicial level, is simultaneously restricted by the requirements of lawfulness, proportionality and the rule of law approaches to construction of which have been developed both in the domestic legal system of Ukraine and in the international law. The state measures, even genuinely aimed at the protection of the state interests of the public nature, employed by the state authorities without due regard to the said restrictions are capable of giving rise to the state responsibility both at the domestic and the international level. Further, the state measures which are lacking compatibility with the lawfulness, proportionality and the rule of law requirements on many occasions impair the eff ectiveness of the state machinery of the state interests protection.

Key words: interests of the state, the state, the rule of law, lawfulness, proportionality.

References

  1. Ghamburgh I. A. Sutnistj publichnogho prava u derzhavakh romano-ghermansjkoji ta anghlo-amerykansjkoji pravovykh simej: porivnjaljnyj analiz. Jurydychnyj naukovyj elektronnyj zhurnal. # 10/2021. S. 54.
  2. Dynnyk I. P. Mekhanizm rozvytku ta funkcionuvannja derzhavy u suchasnomu sviti. Derzhavne upravlinnja: udoskonalennja ta perspektyvy. # 6. 2021. S. 3 URL: http://www.dy.nayka.com.ua/?op=1&z=2086 
  3. Onishhenko N. M. Socialjnyj vymir suchasnykh pravovykh realij. Chasopys Kyjivsjkogho universytetu prava. 2020/2. S. 24. 
  4. The Protection of General Interests in Contemporary International Law (2021), edited by M. Iovane, F. Palombino, D. Amoroso and G. Zarra. New York: Oxford University Press, 3-4.
  5. A. Andrjejev. Mekhanizm pravovogho reghuljuvannja suspiljnykh vidnosyn: okremi aspekty shhodo vyznachennja ponjattja ta osoblyvostej. Pidpryjemnyctvo, ghospodarstvo i pravo. 6/2019. S. 127.
  6. Kravchuk S. J. Teoretyka-pravovi aspekty reghuljuvannja suspiljnykh vidnosyn. Naukovyj visnyk Uzhghorodsjkogho nacionaljnogho universytetu. Serija Pravo. 2022. Vypusk 69. S. 32.
  7. Topolevsjkyj R. B., Fedina N. V. Teorija derzhavy i prava. Ljviv: LjvDUVS. 2020. S. 64.
  8. Gino Scaccia (2019). Proportionality and the Balancing of Rights in the Case-law of European Courts. Federalismi.it. n.4/2019, 2-3. URL: https://www.federalismi.it/nv14/articolo-documento. cfm?Artid=38092
  9. Takis Tridimas (2023). Wreaking the Wrong: Balancing Rights and the Public Interest the EU Way. The Columbia Journal of European Law. Vol. 29. No. 2, 189– 194. 
  10. Borovsjka I. A. Realizacija pryncypu proporcijnosti u cyviljnomu sudochynstvi Ukrajiny za uchastju tretikh osib u spravakh pro vyznannja neobgruntovanymy aktyviv ta jikh stjaghnennja v dokhid derzhavy. Jurydychnyj naukovyj elektronnyj zhurnal. 2023. # 11. S. 139–143.
  11. Kolpakov V. K., Kurinnyj S. V., Sharaja A. A. Realizacija pryncypu verkhovenstva prava v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi krizj pryzmu zastosuvannja rozsudu sudu. Jurydychnyj naukovyj elektronnyj zhurnal. 2022. # 2. S. 207.
  12. N. M. Onishhenko. Pryncyp zakonnosti: naukovi realiji sjoghodennja. Aljmanakh prava. 2012. Vyp. 3. S. 14; O. V. Skrypnjuk, O. V. Kmita. Konstytucijna zakonnistj jak bazova skladova zabezpechennja pryncypu zakonnosti v Ukrajini. Aljmanakh prava. 2016. Vyp. 7. S. 21; Zakonnistj: teoretyko-pravovi problemy doslidzhennja ta vprovadzhennja. Monoghrafi ja. Za red. S. V. Bobrovnyk. Kyiv: Justinian, 2004. S. 3.
  13. Tiramavia S. RL. and others v. the Republic of Moldova: ECHR Judgment, 4 September 2018, § 32. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-186021 
  14. Feldman and Slovyanskyy Bank v. Ukraine: ECHR Judgment, 21 December 2017, § 55-60. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001- 179557 
  15. Kryvenkyy v. Ukraine: ECHR Judgment, 16 February 2017, § 42. URL: https:// hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-171478
  16. Draft-Ova A.S. v. Slovakia: ECHR Judgment, 9 June 2015, § 91. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155101 
  17. Velyka Palata Verkhovnogho Sudu: postanova vid 14.12.2022 r., sprava # 130/3548/21. URL: https:// reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/109075195 
  18. Konstytucijnyj sud Ukrajiny (Drughyj senat): rishennja vid 7.04.2021, sprava # 3-333/2018(4498/18), p. 2. URL: https://ccu.gov.ua/sites/ default/fi les/docs/1_p2_2021.pdf 
  19. Velyka palata Konstytucijnogho sudu Ukrajiny: rishennja vid 30.06.2022, sprava # 1-22/2020(391/20), p. 3.1, 3.2. URL: https://ccu.gov.ua/ sites/default/fi les/docs/1-r2022_0.pdf
  20. Konstytucijnyj sud Ukrajiny: rishennja vid 22.12.2010, sprava # 1-34/2010, p. 4.1. URL: https://ccu.gov.ua/docs/619; rishennja vid 8.12.2011, sprava # 1-19/2011, p. 5. URL: https://ccu.gov.ua/docs/635; rishennja vid 31.03.2015, sprava # 1-4/2015, p. 2.1. URL: https://ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/fi les/ndf/1- rp/2015.pdf rishennja vid 23.01.2020, sprava # 1-5/2018(746/15), p. 3.1. URL: https://ccu. gov.ua/sites/default/fi les/docs/1_p_2020.pdf; rishennja vid 20.06.2019 r., sprava #1-152/2019(3426/19), p. 4. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v006p710-19/print 
  21. O. Petryshyn. Verkhovenstvo prava v systemi pravovogho reghuljuvannja. Pravo Ukrajiny. # 3 2010. S. 27; O. F. Andrijko, V. P. Naghrebeljnyj, L. Je. Kysilj ta in. Pryncyp verkhovenstva prava: problemy tlumachennja ta zastosuvannja v administratyvnomu pravi. Aljmanakh prava. 2012. Vyp. 3. S. 79; Karkhut O. Ja. Pryncyp verkhovenstva prava u konteksti jevrointeghraciji. Naukovyj chasopys Nacionaljnogho pedaghoghichnogho universytetu imeni M. P. Draghomanova. Serija 18. 2016. Vyp. 31. S. 56; P. M. Rabinovych, O. M. Luciv, S. P. Dobrjansjkyj ta in. Pryncyp verkhovenstva prava: problemy teoriji ta praktyky. Monoghrafi ja. Ljviv: Spolom. 2016. S. 13.
  22. S. Poghrebnjak. Pryncyp verkhovenstva prava: dejaki teoretychni problemy. Visnyk Akademiji pravovykh nauk Ukrajiny. Kharkiv: Pravo. 2006. # 1 (44). S. 35–36. 
  23. Geranne Lautenbach (2014). The Concept of the Rule of Law and the European Court of Human Rights, 1st Edition, Oxford University Press, 18–19. 24. Konstytucijnyj sud Ukrajiny (Drughyj senat): rishennja vid 16.11.2022, sprava # 3-270/2019(6302/19), p. 4.5. URL: https://ccu.gov.ua/sites/default/ fi les/docs/9-rii_2022.pdf. 
Back to contents