Olena Shnypko

This article presents a comprehensive theoretical, legal and practical analysis of the specific features of the use of mediation in enforcement proceedings at the request of a creditor bank. The article examines the legal framework for the use of mediation procedures at the stage of the enforcement of court decisions through the prism of the provisions of the Law of Ukraine 'On Mediation', the Law of Ukraine 'On Enforcement Proceedings' and contemporary approaches to the development of alternative dispute resolution. It has been established that the current legislation of Ukraine does not contain a specific mechanism for conducting mediation in enforcement proceedings, which gives rise to a number of legal application issues and hinders the practical use of such procedures. Particular attention is paid to issues of legal uncertainty regarding the procedure for interaction between the creditor bank, the debtor, the mediator and the state or private enforcement officer, as well as the lack of standardised approaches to the documentation and implementation of agreements reached as a result of mediation. The study analyses academic approaches to defining the role of mediation within the enforcement proceedings system and examines current trends in the transformation of the enforcement process from an exclusively coercive model to models focused on finding mutually agreed methods of enforcing decisions. As part of the study, an analysis was carried out of domestic legal doctrine and international experience in the legal regulation of mediation at the stage of enforcing court decisions, in particular the practices of certain European states regarding the integration of mediation mechanisms into the sphere of debt settlement and the enforcement of enforcement documents. Common trends have been identified, relating to the increased role of negotiation procedures, ensuring the voluntary fulfilment of obligations, and the development of standardised approaches to conducting mediation. The study provides a scientific justification for the standardisation of mediation procedures in enforcement proceedings at the request of a creditor bank as one of the avenues for improving the mechanism for the enforcement of court decisions. It is proposed that standardisation be regarded as a system of uniform procedural rules governing the procedure for initiating mediation, the interaction between participants in the procedure, the scope of the negotiations, the formalisation of mediation outcomes, and the mechanisms for their subsequent implementation in enforcement proceedings. Proposals have been formulated to improve national legislation by codifying the specific features of conducting mediation at the stage of enforcement of court decisions, defining the procedural status of the enforcement officer, and introducing standardised mediation procedures in cases concerning the recovery of debts in favour of the creditor bank.

Стаття присвячена дослідженню питань контролю й нагляду у сфері стандартизації та їх особливостей. Визначено, що особливості державного контролю у сфері стандартизації в Україні обумовлюються правовим становищем національного органу стандартизації. Таким органом є Державне підприємство «Український науково-дослідний і навчальний центр проблем стандартизації, сертифікації та якості» (далі – ДП «УкрНДНЦ»), до повноважень якого належить організація та координація діяльності щодо розроблення, прийняття, перевірки, перегляду, скасування національних стандартів, підготовка та затвердження програми робіт з національної стандартизації тощо. Встановлено, що державний контроль у сфері стандартизації здійснює Міністерство економіки, довкілля та сільського господарства України. Цей контроль має подвійну правову природу. З одного боку, він полягає в контролювальних повноваженнях зазначеного міністерства щодо ДП «УкрНДНЦ» як уповноваженого державою власника щодо належного їй майна, з іншого – полягає у виконанні профільним міністерством виключно контрольних повноважень у стандартизації як певній сфері правовідносин. Досліджено особливості державного контролю у сфері стандартизації, які полягають у тому, що він: 1) має свої особливості за предметною сферою діяльності; 2) є контролем з боку виконавчої влади; 3) є відомчим контролем; 4) має підконтрольним об’єктом дотриманням ДП «УкрНДНЦ» як національним органом стандартизації процедур у сфері стандартизації; 5) формами свого здійснення має погодження, проведення перевірки, скасування акта тощо; 6) за часом його проведення буває як попереднім, так і остаточним; 7) має свої особливості щодо напрямів втручання в діяльність ДП «УкрНДНЦ». Нагляд у сфері стандартизації в Україні здійснюється, зокрема, спеціально створеним наглядовим органом у сфері стандартизації зі складною правовою природою – Керівною радою ДП «УкрНДНЦ». Проведений аналіз правового становища Керівної ради встановив певну її схожість з наглядовими радами, що створюються в господарських товариствах. Відмінність між ними полягає в тому, що Керівна рада є органом нагляду, тоді як наглядові ради є органом контролю. Схожість полягає в тому, що в широкому своєму функціональному призначенні як Керівна рада, так і наглядові ради є органами забезпечення балансу інтересів.

This article examines the problematic aspects of the legal mechanism for environmental standardisation in Ukraine and its constituent elements. It is established that the concept, characteristics and substance of the legal mechanism for environmental standardisation are determined by such concepts and their characteristics as 'legal mechanism' and 'environmental standardisation'. Taking these concepts into account, it is proposed that the legal mechanism for environmental standardisation be understood as a system of legal instruments, by means of which a legal influence is exerted on social relations arising in the process of standardisation – an activity consisting in the establishment of provisions for general and repeated use concerning existing or potential challenges, and aimed at achieving an optimal degree of order in the field of environmental protection, ensuring environmental safety, the rational use of natural resources, and so on. The study examines specific elements of the legal mechanism for environmental standardisation that most fully define its characteristics – regulatory acts and legal norms in the field of environmental standardisation, the participants in the legal mechanism for environmental standardisation, and legal relationships in the field of environmental standardisation. It has been established that a shortcoming of the Law of Ukraine 'On Standardisation', as the primary regulatory act in the field of environmental standardisation, is that it does not define the specific nature of environmental standardisation as one of the most important types of standardisations, which requires separate legal regulation at least at the level of a single article of such a regulatory act. In examining the participants in the legal mechanism of environmental standardisation, attention is drawn to the fact that these also include the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine as the sole legislative body in Ukraine, the President of Ukraine and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, all of whom are vested with significant powers in the field of standardisation in general and environmental standardisation in particular. In the study of legal relationships in the field of environmental standardisation, the view was expressed that the assertion regarding the procedural nature of legal relationships in this field is debatable. They are not procedural but rather procedural in nature.

This article is devoted to a comprehensive study of the specific features of taking mitigating and aggravating circumstances into account when imposing sentences in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The relevance of this study stems from the need to ensure consistency in judicial practice and to uphold the principles of legality, justice, humanism and the individualisation of punishment, against the backdrop of developments in Ukraine's criminal legislation and the emergence of new legal positions adopted by the Supreme Court. The aim of the article is to analyse the regulatory framework and the practice of applying the provisions of Articles 65, 66, 67 and 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, to identify the specific features of taking into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances, to highlight problems in the application of the law, and to justify possible avenues for improving criminal law regulation. The research utilised general scientific and specialised legal methods of inquiry, in particular the formal-legal, systemic-structural, comparative-legal, logical-legal and judicial practice analysis methods. On the basis of a comprehensive analysis of legislation and academic approaches, it has been established that the institution of mitigating and aggravating circumstances is one of the key mechanisms for the individualisation of punishment, ensuring the achievement of its objectives and the realisation of the principle of justice. It has been demonstrated that the main problems in contemporary law enforcement practice remain the formalistic approach to the assessment of certain mitigating circumstances, the inconsistent application of the provisions of Article 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the complexity of interpreting certain aggravating