Criteria for determining the adequacy and efficiency of the methods of protection when appealing the decisions of authority subjects

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problems of researching the criteria of propriety and effectiveness of the methods of judicial protection when challenging the decisions of the subjects of authority. The article analyzes the current administrative-procedural legislation, judicial practice and the opinions of scientists in the issues of criteria for determining the appropriateness and effectiveness of judicial protection methods when challenging the decisions of subjects of power. It is proved that the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine has expanded the possibilities of choosing methods of protection when appealing the decisions of subjects of authority. However, and this is confirmed by judicial practice, the extended list of methods of protection when challenging the decisions of subjects of authority is insufficient to ensure a person the realization of his rights or interests violated by the subject of authority when making a decision. The reason for this lies in the fact that the chosen means of protection must also meet certain requirements of effectiveness and propriety. The article substantiates that the following requirements can be attributed to the criteria for the effectiveness of protection methods when challenging the decisions of subjects of authority: the chosen protection method allows to stop and (or) eliminate the violation of the right and prevent its violation in the future; the chosen method of protection allows to restore the violated right and (or) compensate for the damage caused in connection with the violation of the right or interest; the chosen method of protection must correspond to the purpose of protection and ensure the actual protection result desired by the person. It is concluded that the proper method of defense should not contradict the law; to ensure maximum complete and effective restoration of violated rights, freedoms or interests within the limits of current legislation; must not contradict the essence of the claims that were determined by the person who appealed to the court and be adequate to the circumstances of the case and the nature of the offense; comply with the duty of the subject of authority to act within the limits, in the order and in the ways specified in the legislation.