Issue: № 2, 2026
Doi: https://doi.org/10.37634/efp.2026.2.18
The relevance of this paper is determined by the growing importance of filtering mechanisms in contemporary models of justice, which is directly linked to the reform of the judicial system of Ukraine, the transition to a model of limited cassation, and the rethinking of the functional role of higher courts. Despite the normative regulation of procedural admissibility requirements for complaints, the concept of a “filter” remains doctrinally heterogeneous and is employed across different branches of procedural law with varying substantive meanings. This situation necessitates a comprehensive scholarly analysis of modern approaches to filtration as a mechanism that is both selective and, at the same time, protective.
The purpose of the paper is to systematise and synthesise contemporary scholarly approaches to the understanding of filtration in international, constitutional, civil, criminal, and other types of procedure, with a view to identifying the current state of development of the academic interpretation of this concept and revealing the dominant trends in its further conceptualisation. The methodological framework of the study is based on the doctrinal method, used to systematise scholarly positions concerning the concept of the “filter” and its functional purpose. Institutional and axiological approaches are also applied in order to assess the role of filters in balancing the effectiveness of justice, the unity of judicial practice, and the individual’s right of access to a court.
As a result of the study, it is substantiated that the concept of a “filter” in contemporary doctrine appears as a multidimensional procedural-law construct, the common core of which is the selective function of access to legal adjudication.
It is demonstrated that, in the European and constitutional-procedural dimensions, filtration is conceptualised primarily as an institutional mechanism for managing judicial workload, whereas in cassation proceedings it functions as an admission regime oriented towards the development of law and the maintenance of the unity of judicial practice. In criminal procedure, filters acquire a distinctly protective character, serving as safeguards against formalism and violations of the rights of participants in proceedings. Prospects for further research are associated with a deeper analysis of the relationship between filtering mechanisms and judicial discretion, as well as with the development of an inter-branch typology of filters capable of reducing legal uncertainty and enhancing the predictability of law enforcement in the context of ongoing judicial reforms.
Keywords : cassation filters, access to justice, legal certainty, procedural economy, institutional filtration, legal doctrine
References:
1. Constitution of Ukraine of 28 June 1996 No. 254k/96-VR. Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy. 1996, No. 30, Art. 141. (in Ukrainian).
2. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (with Protocols) (European Convention on Human Rights): International treaty of the Council of Europe of 4 November 1950.
3. Case of Diya 97 v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 21 October 2010 (Application No. 19164/04). URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ eng?i=001-101189 (in Ukrainian).
4. Adamchuk, N.V. Cassation filters as an instrument of multidimensional control in the civil procedure of Ukraine. Vcheni zapysky TNU imeni V.I. Vernadskoho. Seriia: Yurydychni nauky. 2025. Issue 36 (75). Part 2. pp. 35-43. URL: https://doi.org/10.32782/TNU-2707-0581/2025.2/05 (in Ukrainian).
5. Adamchuk N.V. Typologisation of cassation appeal filters in civil procedure. Prykarpatskyi yurydychnyi visnyk. 2025. Issue 2 (61). pp. 26-31. URL: https://doi.org/10.32782/pyuv.v2.2025.5 (in Ukrainian).
6. Akhmach H.M. Application of procedural “filters” in the review of court decisions by the cassation instance. Porivnialno-analitychne pravo. 2017. No. 4. pp. 68-71. (in Ukrainian).
7. Badyda A.Y. Priority question of constitutionality” vs “constitutional complaint”: in search of institutional effectiveness. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorod National University. Law Series. 2025. Issue 90. Part 1. pp. 213-218. URL: https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2025.90.1.27 (in Ukrainian).
8. Husarov K.V. Instance-based review of court decisions in civil proceedings: diss… Doctor of legal sciences. Kharkiv, 2011. 431 p. (in Ukrainian).
9. Yerofieienko L., Ostapenko O. Constitutional protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine and the EU: a comparative analysis. Natsionalni interesy Ukrainy. 2026, Issue 1 (18). pp. 622-640. URL: https://doi.org/10.52058/3041-1793-2026-1(18) (in Ukrainian).
10. Komarov V.V. Course of Civil Procedure. Kharkiv, 2011. 1352 p. (in Ukrainian).
11. Komarov V.V., Sakara, N.Y. The right to a fair trial in civil proceedings. Study guide. Kharkiv: National Law Academy of Ukraine. 2007. 35 p. (in Ukrainian).
12. Kostiuchenko, Ya. Preliminary references by national courts to the Court of Justice of the EU as an instrument for ensuring the rule of law of the European Union. Analitychno-porivnialne pravoznavstvo. 2025, No. 5, Part 3, pp. 335-341. URL: https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2025.05.3.49 (in Ukrainian).
13. Luspenyk, D. Limits of cassation court review in civil cases: selected controversial issues. Visnyk Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy, 2010, No. 9, pp. 27-33. (in Ukrainian).
14. Luspenyk D., Sakara,N. Ukrainian model of cassation appeal in civil cases: problems and prospects of improvement (simplification). Pravo Ukrainy. 2008, No. 7. pp. 99-107. (in Ukrainian).
15. Case of Mushta v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 18 November 2010 (Application No. 8863/06). URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-101769 (in Ukrainian).
16. Case of Peleven v. Ukraine: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 20 May 2010 (Application No. 24402/02). URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-98603 (in Ukrainian).
17. Pohoretskyi M. Agreements in the criminal procedure of Ukraine: doctrinal foundations, judicial practice, and standards of the European Court of Human Rights. Nauka i pravookhorona, 2025, Issue 3 (69). pp. 7-19. URL: https://doi.org/10.33270/0525676812 (in Ukrainian).
18. Pohoretskyi, M.A. Digital technologies and evidence in the investigation of crimes against the foundations of national security of Ukraine: procedural issues and European standards. Analitychno-porivnialne pravoznavstvo. 2025, Issue 5. Part 3. pp. 239-255. URL: https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2025.05.3.37 (in Ukrainian).
19. Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court: Resolution of 18 May 2021 in Case No. 914/1570/20. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/97967349 (in Ukrainian).
20. Joint Chamber of the Civil Cassation Court of the Supreme Court: Resolution of 4 July 2018 in Case No. 337/5253/13-ts. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/ Review/75149048 (in Ukrainian).
21. Proskurnia T.V. Methods and means of ensuring the unity of judicial practice in commercial proceedings. Juris Europensis Scientia, 2025. Issue 4. pp. 38-45. URL: https://doi.org/10.32782/chern.v4.2025.8 (in Ukrainian).
22. Sakara, N.Yu. The problem of access to justice in civil cases: monograph. Kharkiv, 2010. 256 p. (in Ukrainian).
23. Supreme Court: Ruling of the Civil Cassation Court (Third Judicial Chamber) of 3 March 2025 in Case No. 2-1380/10. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/125558465 (in Ukrainian).
24. Supreme Court: Ruling of the Civil Cassation Court (Third Judicial Chamber) of 22 December 2025 in Case No. 644/8393/24. URL:https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/132789523 (in Ukrainian).
25. Supreme Court: Ruling of the Civil Cassation Court (Third Judicial Chamber) of 3 February 2025 in Case No. 2-347/10. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/125005251.7 (in Ukrainian).
26. Shcherbak, S., Myroslavskyi, S. Cassation filters in civil proceedings. Copernicus Political and Legal Studies. 2022, Issue 1 (3), pp. 82–93. URL: https://doi.org/10.15804/CPLS.20223.10 (in Ukrainian).
27. Yakymenko T.S. Judicial deference to administrative agencies’ interpretations in the United States and conclusions for Ukraine: do judges respect the legislator? Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorod National University. Law Series. 2025. No. 90. Vol. 1. pp. 181–205. URL: https://doi.org/10.24144/2307-3322.2025.90.1.25 (in Ukrainian).
Download paper
