ISSN 2519-4216
e-ISSN 2519-4313
UDC 34
Law Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs
- legal framework; legal regulations; functions of law; legal interpretation; evaluation; preliminary categories; atypical regulations
- https://doi.org/10.56215/naia-chasopis/1.2023.36
- Pages 36-43
Imperfection of procedure for implementing prejudice during the judicial review of cases could cause instability of practice, which indicates relevance of the research topic regarding formulation of clear criteria for the mechanism of applying prejudice at one’s own discretion in the enforcement of financial provisions of law. In view of the above, the purpose of the article is to identify peculiarities of discretionary powers bias in enforcement of financial provisions of law. The basis of the methodological toolkit is general philosophical (dialectical, hermeneutic), general scientific formal (empirical in the form of observation, description and comparison; axiomatic; hypothetical-deductive; formalization; unity of historical and logical) and specific scientific methods (formal-logical; comparative-legal; system-structural), as well as the methodology of revocation and monitoring of a preliminary judgment, which allows to investigate theoretical and practical issues of discretionary powers in the enforcement of financial and legal norms in unity of their substantive component and external form of reflection. Classification of prejudice has been proposed by: level of law enforcement; legal force of prejudice; meaning of established factual circumstances that are included in the subject of proof; nature of accusation; subject. The psychological dimension of using prejudicial categories has been studied as a metacognitive activity for establishing and taking into account values of prejudice in view of accuracy of empirical generalizations, formulating judgments to identify future consequences of decision-making with prejudicial categories given in the original decision. The article outlines the mechanism for implementing legal policy regarding the use of financial prejudicial categories, which should be based primarily on the instrumental and procedural characteristics of this model of legal influence. It has been established that in the organizational and legal aspect, conditions for the entry of the national market segment into the cross-border space are formed by streamlining interaction procedures of the subjects of legal relations through appropriate forms of legal influence. The practical value of the results is that they could be used to determine the procedure for using prejudice at the supranational and national levels, in particular, in the context of applying the practice of the Court of the European Union
References
[1] Barikova, A.A. (2020). Prejudice within the scope of administrative proceedings. Slovo of the National School of Judges of Ukraine, 3(32), 75-83. doi: 10.37566/2707-6849-2020-3(32)-6.
[2] Barikova, A.A. (2021). Prejudice to enforcement discretion. Bulletin of the Higher Qualification Commission of Judges of Ukraine, 1-2, 9-13.
[3] Bevzenko, V.M., & Panova, H.V. (2018). The essence and grounds of the intervention of the administrative court in the discretion of the subject of public administration. Kyiv: Dakor.
[4] Brewczyńska, M. (2021). Financial Intelligence Units: Reflections on the applicable data protection legal framework. Computer Law & Security Review, 43, article number 105612. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105612.
[5] Brownsword, R. (2022). Law, authority, and respect: Three waves of technological disruption. Law, Innovation and Technology, 14(1), 5-40. doi: 10.1080/17579961.2022.2047517.
[6] Cobbe, J. (2021). Artificial intelligence as a service: Legal responsibilities, liabilities, and policy challenges. Computer Law & Security Review, 42, article number 105573. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105573.
[7] Diver, L. (2021). Digisprudence: The design of legitimate code. Law, Innovation and Technology, 13(2), 325354. doi: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977217.
[8] Eszteri, D. (2022). Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence: Connecting two distinct technologies to comply with GDPR’s data protection by design principle. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 16(1), 59-88. doi: 10.5817/MUJLT2022-1-3.
[9] Hacker, P. (2021). A legal framework for AI training data – from first principles to the Artificial Intelligence Act. Law, Innovation and Technology, 13(2), 257-301. doi: 10.1080/17579961.2021.1977219.
[10] Huivan, P.D. (2019). Determination of authorities’ discretionary powers. Legal Position, 1(22), 81-88. doi: 10.32836/2521-6473-2019-1-81-88.
[11] Khanova, N.O. (2018). The content of the ‘discretion’ concept in tax law. Law Bulletin, 7(1), 145-160.
[12] Krasovska, D. (2020). Problematic issues for applying discretionary powers of the National Bank of Ukraine in the process of bank liquidation. Scientific Herald of National Academy of Internal Affairs, 115(2), 103-111. doi: 10.33270/01201152.103.
[13] Kuftyriev, P.V. (2018). Judicial discretion in the theory of law. Kyiv: In Yure.
[14] Leerssen, P. (2023). An end to shadow banning? Transparency rights in the Digital Services Act between content moderation and curation. Computer Law & Security Review, 48, article number 105790. doi: 10.1016/j. clsr.2023.105790.
[15] Makukh, O.V. (2019). Discretion and abuse of law in tax and legal regulation. Law and Innovations, 26, 100106.
[16] Mooij, A.M. (2023). Reconciling transparency and privacy through the European Digital Identity. Computer Law & Security Review, 48, article number 105796. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105796.
[17] Pečarič, M. (2021). Lex Ex Machina: Reasons for algorithmic regulation. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 15(1), 85-118. doi: 10.5817/MUJLT2021-1-4.
[18] Razmetaeva, Y., & Satokhina, N. (2022). AI-based decisions and disappearance of law. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 16(2), 241-267. doi: 10.5817/MUJLT2022-2-5.
[19] Van Bekkum, M. (2023). Using sensitive data to prevent discrimination by artificial intelligence: Does the GDPR need a new exception? Computer Law & Security Review, 48, article number 105770. doi: 10.1016/j. clsr.2022.105770.
[20] Whitaker, R.M., Colombo, G.B., & Rand, D.G. (2018). Indirect reciprocity and the evolution of prejudicial groups. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-31363-z.
[21] Zherdiev, O.A., & Mikhailina, T.V. (2018). Limits for applying administrative discretion. Bulletin of the Student Scientific Society of the Donetsk National University named after Vasyl Stus, 1, 36-42.