The Ukrainian legal thought has traditionally regarded the right of access to justice as a right of access to the State court, or to State managed or controlled procedures for dispute settlement. One of the main reasons for that was that the non-state, or uncontrolled by the State dispute settlement was not formally permitted, prohibition being imposed by the Soviet system and even to a certain extent during the period of domination on parts of the territory of the modern Ukraine, of the various externally imposed requirements of various legal systems in force at the material time. Non-state dispute settlement in its traditional forms, mainly based on the custom, was also left outside the attention in the pre-Soviet times and could not find its dignified place between accessible schemes and instruments for dispute settlement. Moreover, the understanding that justice delivery for the parties to the dispute should remain within State monopoly, became commonly accepted as from 1996. The adoption of the Constitution of Ukraine to a certain extent perverted approach to settlement of conflicts, focusing on the main role for the State courts, to these ends. In particular, the courts are having “direct jurisdiction” over any dispute, this led to perception of pre-trial settlements as unnecessary, even as regards those that remained in force, notably, the commissions on labour disputes that were recognized in the case-law of the European Court as equating in legal force to binding and enforceable legal instruments. Thus, the traditional historical approach to seeing judicial examination of disputes as an exceptional step in dispute settlement, in the absence of agreement or settlement by the parties, notably through mediation, arbitration or conciliation, variousforms of third party involvement, steadily disappeared. However, alternative examination of disputes is returning back to its original standing. It is gaining its place in the discussions on the judicial reform and reform of the system for settlement of disputes. This reform is far from being finalised and possibly has not even started in practice. The new approach to settlement of disputes, aimed at breaking the principle of State monopoly on examination of disputes and seeing State dispute settlement by court as an exception, is still not firmly entrenched into the mentality of lawyers, public servants, judges, law enforcement employees and politicians in Ukraine. Thus, the article suggests and points out to importance of taking into account with these changes of a wider European perspective. Such a perspective should relate not only to theoretical and practical advantages of the non-state dispute settlement, but also provides that the privatisation of the dispute settlement procedures and breaking the state monopoly on it, is a part of wider international obligations, also being a part of the supranational legal order of the European Union. This obligation of Ukraine is also seen as part of the requirements stemming from the Council of Europe law. Both the EU law and the Council of Europe provide for extensive soft law recommendations, legal principles, which are formed by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Such an approach provides that alternative means of dispute settlement, including arbitration, do not run contrary to the principles of human rights with regard to fair judicial proceedings. On the contrary, they could be seen as a highly relevant actual means of dispute settlement for any modern European society, built on the principles of respect to rule of law and human rights.
“All in their power”: a gloss to the European Court of Human Rights’ judgement in the case of Tsezar and Others v. Ukraine