UDC

Authors

Abstract

The article dwells on decision-making as a stage of judicial enforcement. This topic is important due to the fact that judicial enforcement and the efficiency of the legal system as a whole largely depend on the quality of court decisions. Adoption of a judicial decision is seen as a key stage of the enforcement process. The article examines the relationship between the mechanisms of decision-making and judicial enforcement, as well as the interaction of their structural components. The mechanism of adopting a judicial decision allows the judge to correlate the real case with the applicable principles and rules of law and reach the final decision. We prove that the notion of enforcement is wider than the concept of judicial decision-making, as it includes both the mental process of the law enforcer and the actions and explanations of other participants in the case. The court has no unified algorithm of actions and in each case the judge is the one to choose the means of achieving the result, while following prescriptions of law. Further, we present a classification of judicial decisions by the grounds in the process of their making, which contributes to a better understanding of the structure and mechanism of adopting a judicial decision. In addition, we name the stages of determination of the judge’s mental process, which include a certain set of actions. In addition to general scientific methods, the methodologies of judicial decision-making suggest special methods of intellectual and volitional activity of the judge helping him/her to find the best solution. Understanding the unity of the content of judicial decision-making and its results allows one to trace the genesis of the judicial act as an objectified expression of the intellectual and volitional activity of the judge. The above issues are essential to improve the theory and practice of judicial enforcement.

Keywords

References

1. Averin A.V. Sudebnoe pravoprimenenie i formirovanie nauchno-pravovogo soznaniya sudey: problemy teorii i praktiki: dis. ... d-ra yurid. nauk [Judicial Enforcement and the Formation of the Scientific and Legal Consciousness of Judges: Issues of Theory and Practice: Dr. Jurid. Sci. Diss.]. Saratov, 2004.
   
2. Lupinskaya P.A. Resheniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Ikh vidy, soderzhanie i formy [Decisions in Criminal Proceedings. Their Types, Forms and Content]. Moscow, 1976.
   
3. Khakhaleva E.V. Obosnovannost’ resheniya suda obshchey yurisdiktsii: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Validity of Decisions of the Court of General Jurisdiction: Cand. Jurid. Sci. Diss. Abs.]. Saratov, 2005.
   
4. Gurvich M.A. Reshenie sovetskogo suda v iskovom proizvodstve [Decisions of the Soviet Court in Adversary Proceedings]. Moscow, 1955.
   
5. Alekseev S.S. Obshchaya teoriya sotsialisticheskogo prava [General Theory of Socialist Law]. Sverdlovsk, 1966. Iss. 4.
   
6. Chvanov O.A. Mekhanizm pravoprimeneniya: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Enforcement Mechanisms: Cand. Jurid. Sci. Diss.]. Saratov, 1995.
   
7. Mal’ko A.V., Shundikov K.V. Tseli i sredstva v prave i pravovoy politike [Ends and Means in Law and Legal Policy]. Saratov, 2003.
   
8. Voplenko N.N. Sotsialisticheskaya zakonnost’ i primenenie prava [Socialist Rule of Law and Enforcement]. Saratov, 1983.
   
9. Lazarev V.V., Levchenko I.P. Pravoprimenitel’naya deyatel’nost’ organov vnutrennikh del [Law Enforcement by Internal Affairs Agencies]. Moscow, 1989.
   
10. Kolotov N.G. Prinyatie resheniya kak stadiya protsessa primeneniya norm prava: avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk [Decision-Making as a Stage of Administration of the Law]. Sverdlovsk, 1980.
    
11. Voplenko N.N. Professional’noe pravosoznanie yurista [Professional Legal Awareness of a Lawyer]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser. 5: Politika, sotsiologiya, pravo, 1999, iss. 2, pp. 26–33.
    
12. Bushuev G.I. Sud’ya v ugolovnom protsesse [Judge in a Criminal Trial]. Moscow, 1994.
    
13. Abushenko D.B. Sudebnoe usmotrenie v grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom protsesse [Judicial Discretion in Civil and Arbitration Proceedings]. Moscow, 2002.