LEGAL BASIS OF THE ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONING OF THE KYIV JUDICIAL CHAMBER (MIDDLE XIX – EARLY XX CENTURIES)

Abstract

The article examines the key role of the Kyiv Judicial Chamber, which was endowed not only with judicial functions, but also with a wide range of organizational and coordination powers. The leading role of the judicial chamber was manifested, first of all, in criminal proceedings, which it carried out in the course of its activities as a court of first instance in legislatively defined categories of cases, and as an appellate instance for district courts subordinate to it. As a court of first instance, the Kyiv Judicial Chamber considered cases of a political nature, state crimes, cases of official misconduct and cases of violation of printing laws, etc. The reasons and prerequisites for the implementation of judicial reform are summarized: the absence of a solid legislative basis for judicial proceedings and the judicial system; a large number of judicial institutions, and therefore the complexity of procedural procedures, problems with the jurisdiction of cases, bribery, illiteracy of the servants of the Themis, their legal ignorance, the theory of formal evidence, the dominance of the inquisitorial process during the consideration of cases, the inconsistency of the then judicial system of the Russian Empire with the judicial systems of advanced European countries; lack of distinction between administrative and judicial power; chaos of legislation, the lack of rights of the accused; personnel «hunger», the lack of prestige of work in the courts, distrust of the judiciary, etc. It is noted that the judicial chambers ensured the quality of consideration of criminal and civil cases, firstly, they did not allow the consideration of cases knowingly deprived of prospects in court, secondly, they had broad powers to review already issued court decisions. Also, the judicial chambers successfully functioned as a court of first instance regarding the waiver of obligations of the general order of criminal and civil proceedings. In addition, the judicial chambers were given the authority to conduct cassation proceedings on the outskirts of the empire, which significantly simplified the activities of the Senate. The judicial chambers were also granted broad rights to control the activities of district courts, justices of the peace, the bar, notaries, and judicial investigators. It is concluded that the complex process of forming judicial chamber districts (with numerous reorganizations, the creation of new, and sometimes the abolition of existing courts, and the redistribution of territories within the district) indicates the dominance of a rational approach, which suggests that when implementing judicial policy, the needs of the population and the economy were taken into account, first of all. It is concluded that the formation of judicial chambers on the territory of the Russian Empire strengthened the authority of the judiciary. In particular, the Kyiv Judicial Chamber, despite the difficult conditions of its functioning in the Southwestern region of the Russian Empire, due to the multi-ethnicity of the population, political, socio-economic and cultural differences, acted effectively and efficiently, performing the judicial, organizational and coordination functions assigned to it.