Concept of non-legal disputes in Ukrainian judicial practice

This article reveals the problematic issues related to the exercise of a person's constitutional right to judicial protection. This study compared the latest versions of the provisions of the Basic Law that determine the competence of courts of general jurisdiction; as well as some opinions of judges of the body of constitutional jurisdiction on the wording of this provision. To achieve this goal, the authors analyzed the current practice of the Supreme Court in the system of courts of general jurisdiction. Based on this, a classification of disputes that are not subject to judicial review was formulated, namely cases: which are of a political nature; which belong to the exclusive competence of other bodies or for which there is no legal regulation; in respect of which the person has chosen an ineffective method of protection; and cases, the resolution of which will not have legal consequences for the rights, freedoms and interests of the individual. Warns against the introduction of a mandatory pre-trial (out-of-court) method of dispute resolution, which would be contrary to the previous legal positions of the body of constitutional jurisdiction. The significant essence of justice in general and the role of its consideration of the case on the merits with the adoption of a fair decision, where the latter will be a single act of social justice. The question arises that the absence of any other remedy will undermine the very essence of the law as long as it is a denial of justice. Disputes themselves are a means of identifying the law. The study leads to the conclusion that certain types of non-legal disputes, in particular those that are not regulated by law and those that will not have a direct impact on the rights and interests of the individual, can lead such a person to epistemic ambivalence, which is unacceptable in a state governed by the rule of law.