Випуск: № 2, 2026
Doi: https://doi.org/10.37634/efp.2026.2.18
У статті проведено систематизацію й узагальнення сучасних наукових підходів до розуміння фільтрації у міжнародному, конституційному, цивільному, кримінальному та інших видах процесу. У результаті дослідження обґрунтовано, що поняття «фільтра» у сучасній доктрині постає як багатовимірна процесуально-правова конструкція, спільним ядром якої є селективна функція доступу до правозастосування. Виявлено, що в європейському та конституційно-процесуальному вимірах фільтрація концептуалізується переважно як інституційний механізм управління навантаженням, тоді як у касаційних галузевих про-вадженнях ‒ як режим допуску, орієнтований на розвиток права та забезпечення єдності судової практики.
Ключові слова : касаційні фільтри, доступ до правосуддя, правова визначеність, процесуальна економія, інституційна фільтрація, правова доктрина
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).