Висвітлюються питання основних форм та способів використання офіційної на- зви держави у сфері правосуддя, особливостей вітчизняної та зарубіжної практи- ки конституційно-правового регулювання порядку використання офіційної назви держави при прийнятті судових рішень. Зроблено висновок про необхідність пе- регляду вітчизняної практики ухвалення окремих "судових рішень" судами різних юрисдикцій як "іменем України", так і без використання останнього.
Освещаются вопросы основных форм и способов использования официального наименования государства в сфере правосудия, особенностей отечественной и зарубежной практики конституционно-правового регулирования порядка ис- пользования официального наименования государства при принятии судебных решений. Сделано вывод о необходимости пересмотра отечественной прак- тики принятия отдельных судебных решений судами различных юрисдикций как "именем Украины", так и без использования последнего.
The article attempts to analyze the basic forms and methods of the usage of the official name of the state in the justice sphere. Special attention is paid to the peculiarities of domestic and foreign practice of constitutional and legal regulations of the order of usage of the official name of the state in adopting judicial &decisions. It is noted that justice historically has belonged to traditional areas of the usage of the official name of the state, since justice as such was often administered and court decisions were adopted in its very name. Relevant constitutional& provisions, direct statement of which is often caused by peculiarities of national political and legal traditions is in its basis. For modern constitutional states with the republican form of government, in democratic states a priori "the adoption o&f the judicial decisions in the name of Republic" is proposed to consider as synonymous to "adopting judicial decisions in the name of the people". Both provisions have been traditionally applied in the long-standing European constitutional and legal& practice. The constitutional provision of paragraph five of Article 124 of the current Fundamental Law of Ukraine, according to which "Judicial decisions shall be adopted in the name of Ukraine" is well in tune with the established European constitu&tional and legal practice and generally meets the national traditions in the field of justice (Ukrainian People"s Republic, West-Ukrainian People"s Republic, the 1995 Constitutional Treaty). Attention is drawn to the fact that in the above provision &of Article 124.5 of the Constitution of Ukraine the phrase "judicial decisions" is used without any reservations, and it applies to any and all acts of the court, which are called "judgments". Yet, later the legislator determined that only those "jud&gments by which the court proceedings are terminated, shall be adopted in the name of Ukraine" (Article 13.1 of the Law of Ukraine "On the Judicial System and Status of Judges"). Changes were made to the procedural codes in a similar way, and explana&tions were given by the Plenums of the Supreme Court of Ukraine and high specialised courts concerning which "judgments" should be adopted in the name of Ukraine. In fact, all court decisions were divided into those adopted in the name of Ukraine and& all other (not adopted in the name of Ukraine). All this contributed to the emergence of inconsistent application of Article 124.5 of the Constitution of Ukraine. Conclusion is made about the need to review the domestic practice of adoption of speci&fic "judgments" by courts of different jurisdictions both "in the name of Ukraine", and without the use of the latter. Herewith, decisive in this matter is strict compliance with Article 124.5 of the Constitution of Ukraine, according to which "judic&ial decisions shall be adopted by courts in the name of Ukraine".
