with the New Administrative-Territorial Structure of the District Level. – 3. Lack of Clear and Understandable Criteria for Delimiting the Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Cases in Terms of the Right to a Fair Trial. – 4. The Insignificance of the Case and the Court Fee as Procedural Restrictions on the Right of Access to Court. – 5. Staffing of the Judiciary and the Level of Public Confidence in the Judiciary as Elements of Ensuring the Right of Access to Justice. – 6. Introduction of a Lawyer’s Monopoly on the Representation of Another Person in Court in Terms of the Right to a Fair Trial. – 7. Motivation of Court Decisions in the Aspect of the Right to a Fair Trial. – 8. Conclusions.
This note considers the national legal provisions that regulate the procedure and features of a person’s appeal to the court to protect their rights. Taking into account the provisions of Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) regarding the right to a fair trial and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on its interpretation, key threats to the effective exercise of access to justice in Ukraine have been identified. The problem of the inconsistency of the system of local general courts with the new administrative-territorial structure at the district level is highlighted. It is demonstrated how the lack of clear and understandable criteria for distinguishing the subject matter jurisdiction of cases affects the ensuring of the human right to an effective court. Particular attention is paid to the staffing of the judiciary and the low level of public confidence in the judiciary. The authors have analysed the validity of the application of such procedural restrictions as the court fee for filing a lawsuit and the classification of ‘insignificant cases’, which are impossible to appeal. On this basis, it is concluded that the existence of such restrictions on access to court cannot be considered a violation of the right to a fair trial if such restrictions are justified and proportionate to the lawful purpose of their establishment and do not violate the essence of this right. The features of the introduction in Ukraine of a lawyer’s monopoly on the representation of another person in court, as well as the practice of the ECtHR regarding the possibility of recognising such restrictions as a violation of the right to a fair trial, are analysed. Legislative initiatives to improve the motivation of decisions by the courts are highlighted. It was concluded that the provisions aimed at forming a more responsible attitude of judges to the consideration of cases and making reasoned decisions, as well as solving the problem of excessive load on judges, are a prerequisite for ensuring the right to a fair trial.