Dispute resolution with the participation of a judge: theoretical foundations and limited effectiveness in public law disputes

The article analyzes the institution of dispute resolution with the participation of a judge in administrative proceedings in Ukraine, introduced in 2017 to improve the efficiency of case consideration and reduce the workload of the judicial system. Dispute resolution with the participation of a judge is a new form of alternative resolution of public law conflicts and differs procedurally from the well-known institution of mediation. In this procedure, the judge acts as a mediator within the framework of procedural relations, although outside the scope of direct court proceedings. It is noted that Chapter 4 of the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as CAPU), entitled “Settlement of disputes with the participation of a judge,” is devoted to the regulatory settlement of disputes with the participation of a judge in administrative proceedings, which reveals: the grounds for conducting dispute settlement with the participation of a judge; the procedure for appointing, conducting, and terminating dispute resolution with the participation of a judge, and the time limits within which it is conducted. The study raises the question of whether this institution has lived up to expectations in the context of public law disputes. An analysis of court practice and academic sources shows that this institution is rarely used and functions mainly in a formal manner. The main reason for its ineffective application is the public-law nature of administrative disputes, where the defendant is a public authority. This specificity makes it impossible to reach a mutually acceptable decision, since the terms of reconciliation cannot contradict the law or exceed the powers of the authority. In addition, procedural restrictions, in particular the prohibition of the judge who conducted the settlement from considering the case on its merits, also reduce the practical feasibility of the mechanism. The conclusions of the article emphasize that the institution of dispute settlement with the participation of a judge has not been effectively applied in administrative proceedings due to restrictions related to the public-law nature of the dispute and is rather formal in nature. It has not lived up to expectations of massively reducing the workload of the judicial system. Further development of this institution is possible only if it is clarified in legislation and adapted to the specifics of public law relations.