示范案例是保障社会权利和确保法院实践统一的有效工具

M. Shumylo
{"title":"示范案例是保障社会权利和确保法院实践统一的有效工具","authors":"M. Shumylo","doi":"10.18523/2617-2607.2022.9-10.98-107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the model cases in the field of social protection considered by the Supreme Court. Today, the Supreme Court sets trends and is at the forefront of both judicial practice and doctrinal research in the field of law. Some decisions of the cassation instance solve long-standing problems and also formulate new questions to be answered by the legislator and legal doctrine. The study classifies the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court.Analyzing the practice of the Supreme Court in terms of model proceedings, it can be said that model cases can be classified by two criteria: by the subject of the dispute and by the subject of the appeal.The research analyzes some model cases in which violations of rights in the field of social protection are stated. This made it possible to establish that the Supreme Court has not considered a single pension case on pensions under the general law. Instead, we observe a number of problematic issues in the field of special pensions. The reasons for this, in particular, are: regulations recognized as unconstitutional, low level of legal technique during rulemaking, incorrect interpretation of the law by specially authorized bodies (departments of the Pension Fund).One of the ways to overcome this crisis could be a radical reform (update) of legislation in this area with further codification of pension legislation, where special pensions would take their rightful place in a special part of such a Pension Code, which could later become one of the magnum books of the Social Code on the German model.It is emphasized that there is an objective need to introduce liability (disciplinary) for employees of the pension fund, if the illegality of their actions was established by a court decision that has entered into force – is an objective necessity.","PeriodicalId":34101,"journal":{"name":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Iuridichni nauki","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Model Cases as an Effective Tool for the Protection of Social Rights and Ensuring the Uniformity of Court Practice\",\"authors\":\"M. Shumylo\",\"doi\":\"10.18523/2617-2607.2022.9-10.98-107\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article examines the model cases in the field of social protection considered by the Supreme Court. Today, the Supreme Court sets trends and is at the forefront of both judicial practice and doctrinal research in the field of law. Some decisions of the cassation instance solve long-standing problems and also formulate new questions to be answered by the legislator and legal doctrine. The study classifies the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court.Analyzing the practice of the Supreme Court in terms of model proceedings, it can be said that model cases can be classified by two criteria: by the subject of the dispute and by the subject of the appeal.The research analyzes some model cases in which violations of rights in the field of social protection are stated. This made it possible to establish that the Supreme Court has not considered a single pension case on pensions under the general law. Instead, we observe a number of problematic issues in the field of special pensions. The reasons for this, in particular, are: regulations recognized as unconstitutional, low level of legal technique during rulemaking, incorrect interpretation of the law by specially authorized bodies (departments of the Pension Fund).One of the ways to overcome this crisis could be a radical reform (update) of legislation in this area with further codification of pension legislation, where special pensions would take their rightful place in a special part of such a Pension Code, which could later become one of the magnum books of the Social Code on the German model.It is emphasized that there is an objective need to introduce liability (disciplinary) for employees of the pension fund, if the illegality of their actions was established by a court decision that has entered into force – is an objective necessity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34101,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Iuridichni nauki\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Iuridichni nauki\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-2607.2022.9-10.98-107\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Iuridichni nauki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-2607.2022.9-10.98-107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考察了最高法院审议的社会保护领域的典型案例。今天,最高法院引领潮流,走在法律领域司法实践和理论研究的前沿。上诉案件的一些判决解决了长期存在的问题,也提出了立法者和法律理论需要回答的新问题。这项研究对最高法院的法律结论进行了分类。分析最高法院在示范诉讼方面的实践,可以说,示范案件可以通过两个标准进行分类:根据争议的主体和根据上诉的主体。本研究分析了一些社会保护领域侵犯权利的典型案例。这就可以确定,最高法院没有根据一般法律审议过一个关于养恤金的养恤金案件。相反,我们注意到特别养恤金领域的一些问题。造成这种情况的主要原因是:条例被认为是违宪的,制定规则时的法律技术水平低,特别授权机构(养恤基金部门)对法律的解释不正确。克服这一危机的方法之一可能是对这一领域的立法进行彻底改革(更新),进一步编纂养恤金立法,其中特别养恤金将在这种养恤金法的一个特殊部分中占有应有的地位,该部分后来可能成为德国模式的《社会法典》的巨著之一。有人强调指出,客观上需要对养恤基金的雇员规定责任(纪律),如果他们的行为是由一项已生效的法院判决确定为非法的- -客观上是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Model Cases as an Effective Tool for the Protection of Social Rights and Ensuring the Uniformity of Court Practice
The article examines the model cases in the field of social protection considered by the Supreme Court. Today, the Supreme Court sets trends and is at the forefront of both judicial practice and doctrinal research in the field of law. Some decisions of the cassation instance solve long-standing problems and also formulate new questions to be answered by the legislator and legal doctrine. The study classifies the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court.Analyzing the practice of the Supreme Court in terms of model proceedings, it can be said that model cases can be classified by two criteria: by the subject of the dispute and by the subject of the appeal.The research analyzes some model cases in which violations of rights in the field of social protection are stated. This made it possible to establish that the Supreme Court has not considered a single pension case on pensions under the general law. Instead, we observe a number of problematic issues in the field of special pensions. The reasons for this, in particular, are: regulations recognized as unconstitutional, low level of legal technique during rulemaking, incorrect interpretation of the law by specially authorized bodies (departments of the Pension Fund).One of the ways to overcome this crisis could be a radical reform (update) of legislation in this area with further codification of pension legislation, where special pensions would take their rightful place in a special part of such a Pension Code, which could later become one of the magnum books of the Social Code on the German model.It is emphasized that there is an objective need to introduce liability (disciplinary) for employees of the pension fund, if the illegality of their actions was established by a court decision that has entered into force – is an objective necessity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信