Ukrainian law

The massacre of almost 50 Maidan protesters on February 20, 2014 was a turning point in Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This mass killing of the protesters and the mass shooting of the police that preceded it led to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave a start to a civil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. A conclusion promoted by the post-Yanukovych governments and the media in Ukraine that the massacre was perpetrated by government snipers and special police units on a Yanukovych order has been nearly universally accepted by the Western governments, the media, and many scholars. The Ukrainian government investigation identified members of the special company of Berkut as responsible for killings of the absolute majority of the protesters, but did not release any evidence in support, with the exception of videos of the massacre.
              The question is which side organized the “snipers’ massacre.” This paper is the first academic study of this crucial case of the mass killing. It uses a theory of rational choice and a Weberian theory of instrumental rationality to examine actions of major actors both from the Yanukovych government, specifically various police and security forces, and the Maidan opposition, specifically its far right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre.
          The paper analyzes a large amount of evidence from different publicly available sources concerning this massacre and killings of specifics protesters. Qualitative content analysis includes the following data: about 1,500 videos and recordings of live internet and TV broadcasts from mass media and social media in different countries(some 150 gigabytes), news reports and social media posts by more than 100 journalists covering the massacre from Kyiv, some 5,000 photos, and nearly 30 gigabytes of publicly available radio intercepts of snipers and commanders from the special Alfa unit of the Security Service of Ukraine and Internal Troops, and Maidan massacre trial recordings. This study also employs field research on site of the massacre, eyewitness reports by both Maidan protesters and government special units commanders, statements by both former and current government officials, estimates of approximate ballistic trajectories, bullets and weapons used, and types of wounds among both protesters and the police. This study establishes a precise timeline for various events of the massacre, the locations of both the shooters and the government snipers, and the specific timeline and locations of nearly 50 protesters’ deaths. It also briefly analyzes other major cases of violence during and after the “Euromaidan.” This study includes two video appendixes.
            This academic investigation concludes that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and carried out with a goal of the overthrow of the government and seizure of power. It found various evidence of the involvement of an alliance of the far right organizations, specifically the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland. Concealed shooters and spotters were located in at least 20 Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. The various evidence that the protesters were killed from these locations include some 70 testimonies, primarily by Maidan protesters, several videos of “snipers” targeting protesters from these buildings, comparisons of positions of the specific protesters at the time of their killing and their entry wounds, and bullet impact signs. The study uncovered various videos and photos of armed Maidan “snipers” and spotters in many of these buildings. The paper presents implications of these findings for understanding the nature of the change of the government in Ukraine, the civil war in Donbas, Russian military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, and an international conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine.

Problems and unresolved issues in the field of the Ukrainian political nation consolidation and national minorities rights protection are analysed. The normative legal acts regulating ethno-national relations in Ukraine are analysed. The necessity of reforming the ethno-national legislation, elimination of declarative, contradictory and conflicting norms is proved. Threats caused by separatist manifestations are shown. The main values, guidelines and directions of the Ukrainian state ethno-national policy development are determined. The creation of a legal framework for ethnocultural autonomy in Ukraine will contribute to the formation of an effective system of protection of the rights of citizens belonging to national minorities in Ukraine, which will meet international standards in the field of protection of national minorities. , and will allow to approximate the legislation of Ukraine in the field of protection of the rights of national minorities to the EU law. Each national minority will have the right to create its own ethnocultural (extraterritorial) autonomy in order to address the issues of preservation and development of ethnocultural identity without requirements and claims to the state and the state budget. This will eliminate the declarativeness of the relevant legislation, increase the level of self-organization of national minorities, redirect ethno-territorial requirements to ethnocultural, promote harmonization of ethno-national relations and interethnic harmony in Ukraine, consolidation of Ukrainian society into a political nation based on common citizenship
Keywords: ethno-national policy, Ukrainian nation, national minorities, legislation, ethno-cultural autonomy.

This 9-minute long online video appendix with English-language subtitles contains numerous witness testimonies for the Maidan massacre trial and the investigation in Ukraine about snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings during the Maidan massacre on February 20, 2014. Only witness testimonies made public at this trial before the end of August 2018 are included. The official investigation denied existence of such snipers in these Maidan-controlled buildings and areas.   
            This is a video appendix of papers presented at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in Boston and the “Regimes and Societies in Conflict: Eastern Europe and Russia since 1956” conference by the Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Uppsala University and the British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies at Uppsala University in 2018 (see Katchanovski, 2018a, 2018b). It also supplements previous studies of the Maidan massacre by the author and video appendixes of trial and investigation testimonies by 43 wounded Maidan protesters about snipers in Maidan-controlled locations and over 70 such witness testimonies in the media and social media. (See Katchanovski, 2015, 2016, 2017).

Україна ХХ ст.: суспільно-політичні моделі національної держави (державницька ідеологія та програмні засади провідних українських політичних партій і громадсько-політичних об’єднань) / П.П.Гай-Нижник (керівник проекту, упоряд. і наук. ред.); авт. кол.: П.П.Гай-Нижник, С.І.Губський, А.В.Іванець, І.Й.Краснодемська, Д.В.Толочко, Т.М.Швидченко, Т.М.Шевченко. – К., 2018. – 705 c.

ЗМІСТ

Розділ 1
Тетяна Швидченко, Сергій Губський
УКРАЇНСЬКА РЕВОЛЮЦІЯ ТА ДЕРЖАВОТВОРЕННЯ 1917–1921 рр.: СТАНОВЛЕННЯ НАЦІОНАЛЬНОЇ ДЕРЖАВНОСТІ (ПАРТІЙНО-ОРГАНІЗАЦІЙНИЙ СПЕКТР). .5
Розділ 2
Андрій Іванець
ВПЛИВ УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ І КРИМСЬКОТАТАРСЬКОЇ РЕВОЛЮЦІЙ НА ВИНИКНЕННЯ КРИМСЬКОГО ПИТАННЯ У 1917 р. .117
Розділ 3
Павло Гай-Нижник
ІДЕЯ СОБОРНОСТІ Й УКРАЇНСЬКЕ ДЕРЖАВОТВОРЕННЯ (1918–1919 рр.). 182
Розділ 4
Павло Гай-Нижник
СТАНОВЛЕННЯ ТЕОРІЇ УКРАЇНСЬКОГО НАЦІОНАЛ-КОНСЕРВАТИЗМУ І ГЕТЬМАНСЬКОГО МОНАРХІЗМУ У ХХ СТ.: ВІЛЬНА УКРАЇНА, УІК-СВУ, УДХП, УНГ, УСХД, СГД (ГЕТЬМАНСЬКИЙ РУХ). 223
Розділ 5
Ірина Краснодемська
ДЕРЖАВНИЦЬКА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ ПОЛІТИЧНИХ ПАРТІЙ НА ЗАХІДНОУКРАЇНСЬКИХ ЗЕМЛЯХ (1920–1930-ті рр.). 359
Розділ 6
Ірина Краснодемська
ФЕНОМЕН КАРПАТСЬКОЇ УКРАЇНИ ТА ЇЇ РОЛЬ У ДЕРЖАВОТВОРЧИХ ПРОЦЕСАХ КІНЦЯ 30-х РОКІВ ХХ ст. .413
Розділ 7
Павло Гай-Нижник
КОНЦЕПЦІЯ І МОДЕЛЬ УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ ДЕРЖАВИ У ПРОГРАМОВИХ ЗАСАДАХ ОУН (Р): ВІД ТЕОРІЇ РЕВОЛЮЦІЙНОЇ НАЦІОКРАТІЇ ДО ПРАКТИКИ «ПАРАЛЕЛЬНОЇ» ДЕРЖАВНОСТІ (1941 р.). 446
Розділ 8
Павло Гай-Нижник
МОДЕЛЬ МАЙБУТНЬОЇ УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ ДЕРЖАВИ У ПРОГРАМОВИХ ТА ІДЕОЛОГІЧНИХ КОНЦЕПЦІЯХ ОУН (Б): 1940-ві – пол. 1960-х рр. 540
Розділ 9
Павло Гай-Нижник
УРДП: ПРОГРАМОВІ ЗАСАДИ ТА СВІТОГЛЯДНІ ІДЕЇ (др. пол. 1940-х – 1960-ті рр.). 592
Розділ 10
Тетяна Шевченко
СУСПІЛЬНО-ПОЛІТИЧНІ ЗАСАДИ МАЙБУТНЬОЇ УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ ДЕРЖАВИ В ПРОГРАМНИХ ДОКУМЕНТАХ ДИСИДЕНТСЬКОГО РУХУ В УКРАЇНІ .616
Розділ 11
Павло Гай-Нижник
ВИНИКНЕННЯ ПЕРШИХ ПОЛІТИЧНИХ ПАРТІЙ В УРСР, УТВОРЕННЯ НАРОДНОГО РУХУ УКРАЇНИ ТА ЙОГО ПОЗИЦІЯ ЩОДО СОЮЗНОГО ДОГОВОРУ (1989–1991 рр.) .659
Розділ 12
Денис Толочко
ОСНОВНІ ТЕНДЕНЦІЇ РОЗВИТКУ СУСПІЛЬНО-ПОЛІТИЧНОЇ СИСТЕМИ ТОТАЛІТАРНОЇ ДОБИ ТА ВПЛИВ ПОСТТОТАЛІТАРНОЇ МЕНТАЛЬНОСТІ НА СОЦІОКУЛЬТУРНУ АДАПТАЦІЮ УКРАЇНСЬКОГО СУСПІЛЬСТВА. 685

This chapter presents a summary of analysis, evidence, and findings of a study of the “snipers’ massacre” of “Euromaidan” protesters and policemen on the Maidan in Ukraine on February 20, 2014. This mass killing was a turning point in the Ukrainian politics and a tipping point in a conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine. This massacre led to an overthrow of the government of Viktor Yanukovych and a Russian annexation in Crimea, a civil war in Donbas in Eastern Ukraine, and Russian military intervention in support of separatists in these regions. The question is which side was involved in the “snipers’ massacre.” This study relies on rational choice and Weberian theories of rational action. It employs interpretative and content analyses of a large number of different sources. The analysis shows that armed groups of concealed Maidan shooters first killed and wounded policemen on the Maidan and then protesters. Armed groups of “snipers” and parts of leadership of the far right organizations, such as the Right Sector and Svoboda, and oligarchic parties, such as Fatherland, were involved in various capacities in the massacre. This mass killing was misrepresented by the media and the governments in Ukraine and the West.

The present analysis does not reflect the official position of the West, nor of Ukraine, nor of Russia in the case of the Ukrainian crisis. It is an expert analysis that focuses on the realities. There is no aim to form a "politically correct" position.

This paper examines the political system, attitudes towards democracy, and their determinants in Ukraine before, during and after the “Euromaidan.” The research question is as follows: What type of political system has emerged in Ukraine since the “Euromaidan?” The related research question is to what extent political values in Ukraine are supportive of democracy. This study is based on theories of democratic, semi-democratic, and authoritarian political systems, democratization, and political culture. A number of major survey-based academic studies, conducted primarily before the “Orange Revolution,” concluded that mass political values in Ukraine were generally supportive of democracy, and that they did not preclude emergence of a consolidated democracy. Many previous studies presented the “Orange Revolution” as a democratic revolution that transformed Ukraine from semi-democracy or competitive authoritarianism to democracy. Democracy was often regarded as the most likely future path of political development of this post-Soviet state. The Western and Ukrainian media, the Western governments, and the Maidan government in Ukraine also generally presented the “Euromaidan” as a democratic revolution that overthrew the authoritarian government as a result of mass peaceful protests. However, there is lack of academic studies of the political system and democratic values in Ukraine since the “Euromaidan.” This paper compares political systems in Ukraine before, during and after the “Euromaidan.” It uses data from different waves of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems surveys, the Pew Global Attitudes surveys, and the World Values Surveys to examine public attitudes towards democracy in Ukraine before and after the “Euromaidan.” It also compares democratic and authoritarian preferences in Ukraine with those in Poland and Russia, two similar post-communist countries with differing political cultures and divergent trajectories of democratization. Finally, this study implements multiple regression analysis of the determinants of attitudes towards democracy. It analyzes effects of political party preferences, regional historical legacies, religion, ethnicity, and other factors on pro-democracy views. The study also discusses implications of its findings for the prospects for liberal democracy in Ukraine and for the conflict between the West and Russia over Ukraine.

Jelen elemzés nem tükrözi sem a nyugati, sem az ukrán, sem az orosz, sem a magyar hivatalos álláspontot az ukrán nyelvtörvény ügyében. Szakértői elemzés, amelyik a realitásokat helyezi előtérbe. Nem cél „politikailag korrekt” álláspont kialakítása.

Метою цього дослідження є аналіз українського законодавства і практики в галузі права, що регулює заснування і діяльність компаній, корпоративне управління, бухгалтерський облік і аудит, та вивчення його поточного рівня відповідності до вимог та стандартів права ЄС. Дослідження також містить актуалізовану інформацію про основні зміни, які відбулися в аналізованих сферах в 2014 році.

Розвиток законодавства - це явище, яке рідко відбувається лінійно. Часи швидких змін чергуються з часами застою, реформи супроводжуються періoдами їх засвоєння. Українське право не відхиляється від цієї моделі. За останні майже 25 років кілька моментів ознаменували віхи в цьому процесі. Цими моментами в часі були: 1991 рік –прийняття Закону «Про господарські товариства», 2004 рік - прийняття Цивільного та Господарського кодексів і 2008 рік - народження нового Закону «Про акціонерні товариства». Новий імпульс для реформування законодавства став актуальним і політично можливим саме тепер: адже відповідно до Угоди про асоціацію між Європейським Союзом та Україною, що була підписана в 2014 році, Україна зобов’язалась привести своє законодавство у відповідність до вимог права ЄС. Це дослідження відсилає до тієї частини Угоди про Асоціацію, яка стосується законодавства про заснування та діяльність компаній, корпоративне управління, бухгалтерський облік та аудит. Загальною метою цього Звіту є покращення бізнес-клімату в Україні за допомогою наближення її законодавства про компанії, корпоративне управління, бухгалтерський облік та аудит до стандартів і практик ЄС. У Звіті представлена оцінка поточного рівня наближення аналізованого законодавства України до Acquis ЄС, а також надані рекомендації для його подальшої гармонізації. Крім того, в дослідженні звертається увага на досвід деяких європейських країн і США, та робляться відповідні висновки з їх реформ корпоративного права.

The following article discusses the application of lex mercatoria by domestic
courts and international arbitral tribunals instead of or supplementary to domestic
substantive law. Emphasising the legal status of lex mercatoria, the article evaluates its value
compared to substantive law. To provide legal certainty, it also tries to establish certain
criteria regarding the recognition of certain business principles as lex mercatoria.

В данной работе исследуются трансформации Украинского института национальной памяти (УИНП). Анализируются его финансовые и человеческие ресурсы. Рассматривается тематический контент сайта УИНП 2014-2018 гг. Делается вывод о том, что Институциональный дизайн УИНП как особого института исполнительной власти, заложенный в 2006 г., смог в полной мере начать реализовываться только с 2014 г. при поддержке президента Украины и активных действиях нового директора В. М . Вятровича. УИНП прошел путь от института, работающего на репрезентацию Голодомора, к роли координатора государственной политики для других акторов, действующих в сфере политики памяти. При увеличении в 2019 г. бюджета УИНП на 40 % и региональном расширении УИНП должен усилить государственный контроль в сфере мнемонической политики в регионах, малых и средних городах. Репрезентируя эксклюзивный нарратив украинской истории, УИНП принял активное участие в уничтожении и вытеснении в «подполье» альтернативных исторических нарративов, используя тесную связь с силовыми органами и органами судопроизводства в ходе декоммунизации. Усилив свое медийное влияние через социальные сети и интернет, институт начинает играть роль самостоятельного актора исторической политики, а не простого инструмента продолжения государственной политики.

Словник енциклопедичного типу представляє інноваційний підхід до системного знання з юрислінгвістики в сучасній українській лексикографії. Подано основні терміни юрислінгвістики, окреслено їх поняттєвий обсяг, місце у структурі нового напрямку лінгвістичного знання. Словник включає основну бібліографію праць, у яких репрезентовано різні наукові аспекти аналізу юрислінгвістичної проблематики, а також фахові словникові видання, що дозволяють поглибити знання з юрислінгвістики. В додатках наводяться тексти деяких законів, що регулюють діяльність у сфері юрислінгвістики, зокрема лінгвістичної експертизи.

Розраховано на фахівців-юрислінгвістів, мовознавців, юристів, політологів, студентів - усіх, хто професійно цікавиться юрислінгвістикою.

Total rejection of the aggression and territory occupation in the international law leads to their hybrid and concealed forms using gangs and mercenaries, proclaiming new “states” etc. These activities constitute serious threat to international security, can cause and already cause the fragmentation of states, anarchy, criminalization of politics, new forms of expansionism and so on. The authors of the article generalize the forms of illegal control over the territory in international law and their application considering the status of Donbas determination.
International law for more than a century provides for the possibility of separate regulation of the sovereignty and legal rights of the state to the territory, on the one hand, and the implementation of the regime of illegal control over the territory – on the other. Authors argue that in the modern sense, primarily developed by doctrine and courts, illegal control over the territory can be considered as a legal regime, one of the forms of which is occupation, while others are defined as effective, overall, general, de facto control and related to undisclosed actions and informal means used by the aggressor states. This regime is characterized by the exercise of power over the territory by the will of a foreign state, and the forms of implementation of the regime differ depending on whether such a will is officially recognized or concealed.
The transformation of international humanitarian law after the Second World War erased the boundaries between recognized and officially unrecognized occupation. But unlike occupation, the fact of which may be obvious, the fact of effective or other control over the territory requires the determination by judicial authorities.
The qualification of illegal control by the Russian Federation of the Donbas in national and international law is ambiguous. The authors argue that the full recognition of the international armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia in Donbas, as well as Russia’s illegal control over latter should be expected in the process of consideration of a number of cases in the international judicial institutions.
Keywords: international law, international humanitarian law, illegal control over territory, occupation, aggression, effective control, de facto control, general control

This 59-minute long online video appendix with English-language subtitles includes testimonies at the Maidan massacre trial and/or investigation about snipers in Maidan-controlled buildings and areas by 47 Maidan protesters, who were wounded during the Maidan massacre in Ukraine on February 20, 2014. This is the absolute majority of 72 wounded Maidan protesters, with whose shooting Berkut policemen are charged and whose testimonies were revealed at the trial. At least 28 wounded protesters testified at the trial and/or the investigation that they were wounded from Maidan-controlled buildings or areas. At least 30 protesters testified that they witnessed snipers there and/or were told about snipers in these locations by other protesters. The official investigation denied existence of such snipers in these Maidan-controlled buildings and areas.
                This is a video appendix of papers presented at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in Boston and the "Regimes and Societies in Conflict: Eastern Europe and Russia since 1956" conference by the Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Uppsala University and the British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies at Uppsala University in 2018 (Katchanovski, 2018a, 2018b). It also supplements previous studies of the Maidan massacre by the author (Katchanovski, 2015, 2016, 2017).
              The Prosecutor General Office of Ukraine investigation also determined based on testimonies of wounded protesters, forensic examinations of wounds and extracted bullets, and investigative experiments that almost half of protesters (77 out of 157) were wounded on February 20, 2014 from other sectors than the Berkut police and that government snipers units did not massacre them. No one was charged with their shooting. These testimonies were not made public and cannot be included in this video appendix.

This book first proves that the rationale behind Russia’s aggressive actions in its neighborhood resides in its goal of achieving certain geostrategic objectives which are largely predefined by the state’s imperial traditions, memories, and fears that the Kremlin may irretrievably lose control over lands which were once Russian. In other words, Russia constantly remains an expansion-oriented and centralized state regardless of epochs and political regimes ruling over it. That is its geopolitical modus operandi successfully tested throughout history. This book also scrutinizes Ukraine as a young post-colonial and post-communist state which, unlike Russia, is more prone to democratize and decentralize. To understand the logics of the ongoing Ukrainian transformation, its domestic and international developments are assessed in their connection to the Soviet political tradition and the medieval legacy of the Cossack statehood (15–18 centuries). This book outlines differences between the political cultures of Ukrainian and Russian nations. This envisages scrutiny of historical experiences and their impacts on the Ukrainian and Russian state-building, institutional structures, national identity, religious issues, and other features of sovereignty. Based on these discoveries, a structure of symbolic thinking which predefines indigenous understandings of justice and order has been constructed for Ukrainians and Russians.

Conducted examination allowed to conclude on the following. The right of publicity is one of the emerging rights belonging to celebrities who have gained publicity in certain spheres of show business (singers, actors, artists, writers, etc.), the sports industry, or politics; individuals who have become the victims of crime; and others. American legal doctrine has already developed case law and a legal framework allowing famous persons to freely license and transfer their right of publicity. The countries of the EU have not developed a unique approach regarding the right of publicity, while the Bailiwick of Guernsey has introduced a unique system of protection of the so-called image rights, creating a special register of such rights and allowing protection of moral and patrimonial rights to one׳s image, which is broadly defined.

The right of publicity is distinguished from trademarks and copyright; an analysis of their legal nature shows that these objects are not identical.

Current Ukrainian legislation provides for protection of one`s name and image, however the emerging market of show business in Ukraine makes it obvious that the right of publicity shall be introduced into Ukrainian Civil Code. A new right in Ukraine can be based on the example of the American model (i.e. on relevant provisions of the California Civil Code).
Keywords: Right of publicity; Personality rights; Entertainment law; Show business; Image rights

The rapid development of contemporary Polish-Ukrainian relations and the emigration of Ukrainians to Poland and EU countries require more and more lawyers to provide cross-border legal services. However, the emerging barriers between the countries effectively limit the possibilities for cooperation. It is particularly important to determine the extent of involvement of Polish lawyers in Ukraine and Ukrainians in Poland and to explain the reasons for their lack of involvement. It is also important to determine the consequences of the observed problem and the development strategy for the future.

The present research is part of a larger study on the internationalisation of the Polish justice system and the provision of cross-border legal services. Methodologically, the study has been performed through structured interviews among representatives of Polish lawyers and questionnaires among all Polish lawyers. It was supplemented by non-reactive methods: an analysis of statistical data, an anthropomastic analysis, a content analysis of websites, and a functional analysis of legal acts.

The results of the study show that Polish lawyers do not practice in Ukraine at all, and no more than 20 Ukrainian jurists work in Poland. The reasons are the border barriers and the lack of demand for mutual legal services, as well as cultural differences. The low level of involvement of the Polish and Ukrainian Bar Associations also contributes to the low level of provision of cross-border legal services. Nevertheless, Ukrainian immigrants to Poland are increasingly becoming Polish lawyers. Currently, the involvement of Ukrainian lawyers in the Polish legal services market is slowly increasing. This confused situation will likely change later this decade.

The 55 minute long online video appendix with added English-language subtitles is produced from brief synchronized segments of on-site reports by American, Belgian, Belorussian, British, Finish, French, Dutch, German, Polish, Russian, Spanish, and Ukrainian TV correspondents and social media videos by various Maidan protesters who filmed the Maidan massacre on February 20, 2014. These videos are cited in the following papers for which this video appendix is produced: "The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine: Revelations from Trials and Government Investigations," presented at the 22th Annual World Convention of the Association for the Study of Nationalities, Harriman Institute, Columbia University, New York, May 4-6, 2017, and "The “Snipers’ Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine,” presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association in San Francisco, September 3-6, 2015.

Зміст
Підстави для передачі справи на розгляд ВП ВС для відступу від висновку щодо застосування норми права (слайди 3-5).
Підстави, способи та наслідки відступу від висновку щодо застосування норми права (слайди 6-10).
Статистичні дані стосовно відступів ВП ВС від висновків щодо застосування норм права (слайди 11-16).
Відступи від висновків у 2021 році (станом на початок листопада)
4.1. У цивільних справах (слайди 18-48).
4.2. У господарських справах (слайди 49-86).
4.3. В адміністративних справах (слайди 87-103).

This Article argues that that issue preclusion might be considered as a part of res judicata, however not its essential element, since many legal systems do not attribute issue preclusive effect to rendered judgements. The Article defines the scope of issue preclusion and meaning of some terms that are used to name this phenomenon in countries with developed issue preclusion doctrine. The paper shows that Ukrainian procedural laws tend to be narrowly interpreted by courts that give preclusive effect only to the findings on issues of fact, but not issues of law contained in a judgement’s reasons. The Article argues that conditions for issue preclusive effect can be specified with better precision and established in procedural laws and jurisprudence. Instead of a vague requirement of facts to be “directly examined and found by the court” in order to have preclusive effect, the jurisprudence might adopt more specific conditions, such as materiality for the judgement, i. e. the facts have to be relevant and material for the judgement in the case where they were found for them to have preclusive effect in subsequent proceedings. The Article also contains analysis of other requirements for issue preclusive effect of a rendered judgement, in particular requirements to identity of participants in cases, proper litigation and attribution of preclusive effect upon the respective motion of a party invoking issue preclusion. The attribution of the issue preclusive effect to a judgement is considered in this Article as a process with subsequent stages, some of them are to be performed by the court ex officio, and the others need to be initiated by the respective party. The Article also argues that the jurisprudence in cases with non-identical parties needs to be changed: instead of current approach according to which the limited issue preclusive effect can be invoked not only against the party to the first case, but also by the party to both cases, and the party that did not participated in the first case has the right to provide evidence to disprove the established facts which establishes rather a refutable presumption, the opposite approach needs to be adopted – the issue preclusive effect can be invoked only against the party to the first case.
Key words: burden of proof, collateral estoppel, fact preclusion, issue preclusion, preclusive effect of judgments, res judicata.

У статті розкрито співвідношення доктрини преюдиціальних фактів та принципу res judicata. Досліджено властиві різним правовим системам підходи до питання про обов’язковість встановлених судовим рішенням в іншій справі фактів. У статті показано різні підходи до преюдиції, від обмеження її до рівня спростовної презумпції факту, до найбільш широкого трактування, яке охоплює не тільки питання факту, а й обов’язковість висновків суду стосовно юридичного значення встановленого факту. Проаналізовано судову практику у вирішенні питання про умови, за яких встановленим рішенням суду в іншій справі фактам може бути надано преюдиціальне значення в господарській справі. З посиланням на напрацювання у країнах з розвиненою доктриною преюдиції або побічного естоппеля сформульовано пропозиції до виокремлення у практиці вітчизняних судів умов, за яких встановлені в інших справах факти можуть набувати значення преюдиціальних. Особливу увагу приділено віднесенню до умов преюдиціальності умови про належність встановленого у більш ранній справі факту до предмету доказування у цій справі. У статті зроблено наголос на стадійності вирішення питання про преюдиціальне значення факту, яке суд здійснює за заявою учасника, який несе тягар доведення. Розмежовано дії, які суд у цьому процесі зобов’язаний вчинити ex officio, і ті, які повинні бути ініційовані відповідним учасником. Стаття також вказує на необхідність приведення практики надання преюдиціального значення фактам у справах з неідентичним складом учасників до тих підходів, які властиві правовим системам з розвиненою доктриною преюдиції: замість закріпленої зараз можливості визнання преюдиціально значення фактів, встановлених в одній справі стосовно учасника, за заявою цього ж учасника у наступній справі з можливістю іншого учасника наступної справи, який не брав участі у розгляді першої справи, спростувати ці факти, слід перейти до практики надання можливості посилатися у наступній справі на встановлені у першій справі стосовно учасника обох справ обставини як на преюдиціальні тільки учаснику другої справи, який у першій справі участі не брав.
Ключові слова: естоппель, звільнення від доказування, предмет доказування, преюдиціальний факт, res judicata.

The article considers the conceptual framework of EU security law and its realization in crisis management strategy, approaches to Eastern Europe and Ukrainian security issues, sanctions against Russia, EU missions to Ukraine. The object of the study is to distinguish and reconstruct the most important concepts underlying the security law of the EU, the legal ideology thereof and its implementation in the situation of Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict. The same way, the study provides a new key to understand the principal conceptual transformations of the international security law. The study shows that EU has implemented a wide range of non-military peacekeeping / anti-crisis instruments of its foreign policy in response to Russia's armed aggression against Ukraine, in particular, political, diplomatic, economic, trade, civilian operational. And they should not be derogated. But, given the general features of the development of the Union's foreign and security law and policy, there is no reason to expect that the Union will play a crucial role in restoring Ukraine's territorial integrity. Instead, as the authors propose, the intentions, potential and tools of the EU's "soft power", including the potential of two functioning EU missions, should be fully exploited to de-escalate the crisis, enhance the resilience and economic development of the Ukrainian state, and manage conflicts in Ukrainian society. That could be the proper way to implement positively the new international security law paradigm potential.

This report about oppression of personal autonomy, neglect of human rights in Ukraine is prepared by Autonomous Advocacy, Ukrainian Council of Freethinkers and Believers, and Institute of Open Religion in March 2017 for Joint Submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Ukraine (Third Cycle, 28th session 2017) in United Nations Human Rights Council, and amended in July 2017 due to swift degradation of situation with human rights in Ukraine.

Key problems revealed are: war, poverty, impunity of the most crimes against person, poor implementation of human rights in judicial practice, economic barriers in access to justice, authoritarian practices harmful for national, cultural, religious and dissenting minorities, oppression of free speech, violations of privacy and property rights by state policies, predatory monopolism and elitism.

Key propositions are: to amend Constitution of Ukraine, recognizing universal unalienable nature and autonomous meaning of human rights; to reduce court fees in typical cases of human rights violation, especially by officials and law enforcers; allow lawyers to develop pluralism of legal opinions and create alternative independent bar associations without coercive membership in Ukrainian National Bar Association; stop blocking social networks; stop force people and media to use Ukrainian language by violence; stop dictate religious organizations how to worship and manage, comply obligations, noted in §§ 86-91 of decision of European Court of Human Rights in the case of Svyato-Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. Ukraine (No. 77703/01 by 14 June 2007); stop involve people to aggressive war, don't discriminate pacifists, comply obligations, noted in UN Human Rights Committee Resolution No. CCPR/C/UKR/CO/7 by 22 August 2013, especially stop violence against minorities and dissenters, provide right to conscientious objection on non-discriminative basis; stop censorship of online petitions; allow people to participate in inclusive public dialogue.

‘See you in The Hague!’ This expression is popular amongst the politically active part of the Ukrainian general public who raise their voices online. Political leaders in Ukraine, including President Poroshenko and Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, use references to ‘The Hague’ in their interviews and social media posts, as the judicial instance of last resort when describing the future of the Russian leadership, the militants in parts of the Donbas region, and those
responsible for the killings during the Maidan (or Euromaidan) protests.

Year 2020 — with heated political competition, change of cabinets, COVID-19 lockdowns, and economic crisis — was not a year of new constitutional initiatives in Ukraine. Instead, President Volodymyr Zelensky, Cabinet of Ministers, and the ruling majority1 have continued with the constitutional changes that were instigated in 2019 or before.
In regard with the Constitution and its amendments, the pres- ident and the ruling majority focused on three major priorities in 2020. First of all, the government continued with the approval pro- cess of the constitutional amendments initiated by President Zelensky in 2019. Second, the government persisted with the approval of the norms envisaged in attempts of the constitutional amendments initi- ated by President Petro Poroshenko (2014-2019) and Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman (2016-2019) in 2018-2019. Finally, government attempted increasing informal political control of executive branch of power over judiciary and over the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) — a process that influences application of the fundamental con- stitutional principles in Ukraine.

The investigations of the Maidan massacre by the Prosecutor General Office of Ukraine (GPU) soon would reach already extended time limit allotted for investigations. The GPU claims that they already have conclusive evidence concerning responsibility of the members of the Berkut special police company for shooting the Maidan protesters and for the Yanukovych government ordering this mass killing. Specific results of this investigation continue to be gradually made public for the first time during an ongoing trial of two Berkut members, who are charged with killings of 39 out of 49 protesters on February 20, 2014. Results of forensic medical and ballistic reports, testimonies of eyewitnesses among protesters, and even some videos from the investigation files presented during the trial support major findings of my Maidan massacre study, specifically that at the very least the absolute majority of these 49 protesters were killed from the Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled buildings. But these major revelations have not been reported by the mainstream media in Ukraine and the West, even though all proceedings of the trial are open, streamed live, and their recordings are available on YouTube.

This article traces the parallel developments of the Ukrainian transition from Soviet to post-Soviet law and from state to private property. To do this, the article is divided into four parts. The first examines the transition of the Ukrainian legal system from pre-Soviet to post-Soviet law. The second traces the microcosm of that transition as it occurred through the failed adoption of private property introduced in the law of post-Soviet Ukraine. The third demonstrates that the flawed approach by which private property has been adopted, with little if any real and effective regulation in post-independence Ukraine, has produced negative consequences for the Ukrainian people. The final part concludes.

The article gives the analysis of the conditions under which a web-site can be mass-media. The author notes that Internet media have differences from the familiar mass-media which are reflected not only in presentation of material but in principles of work with information. Particular attention is paid to the establishing of the criteria of qualifying the site as online media. The author made the scientific analysis of issues of copyright infringement in Internet media.