THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE JUDICIARY: THE SEARCH FOR A DOCTRINAL COMPROMISE

Abstract

This article offers a systematic examination of the distinction between private and public interests through the lens of contemporary theories of justice. The traditional division between private and public law remains relevant to many; however, a re-evaluation is warranted in light of recent judicial interpretations provided by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the European Court of Human Rights. The legal nature of the public interest as a legal category and its relationship with the rights and freedoms of the individual are examined, as well as the doctrinal methodology for establishing the criteria used to distinguish between public and private interests within the jurisdiction of the court, and its impact on justice in civil, administrative and commercial courts.

Particular attention is paid to the principle of proportionality as a tool used to balance competing interests. The article examines how the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has sought to protect public interests, as well as to establish the limits of state interference in people’s private lives. A definition is provided of the doctrinal compromise between public and private interests in court, based on the extent to which it is reasonable for the parties involved to have access to the legal system, as well as the extent to which the legal system is accessible to both parties in court proceedings.

The author emphasises that the dichotomy between public and private law is a pervasive issue across all branches of law and is becoming increasingly pronounced, particularly in the context of European integration, where the harmonisation of EU standards will bring about a fundamental shift in the traditional boundaries between the autonomy of private law and the regulation of public law. The doctrine of proportionality cannot be established as the dominant doctrine of justice by establishing an a priori hierarchy of private and public interests. It requires the consistent application of procedural criteria to resolve each specific conflict of interest between the parties on the basis of the criteria of legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality.

Ultimately, this review demonstrates that justice in the administration of justice will only be achieved when both types of interest are duly taken into account and considered by the court in the exercise of its discretionary powers; and when the decisions taken by the court are justifiably distinct from those taken by legislative and administrative bodies.