ADJUSTMENT OF THE ECONOMIC NATURE OF LEGAL DISPUTES SINCE 2022

This article examines the structure, dynamics, and legal nature of court cases involving the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine in 2023–2024, based on official statistical and analytical data. The study identifies core categories of disputes in which the Ministry appears as a defendant, plaintiff, or participant in enforcement-related and regulatory proceedings. Particular attention is given to the growing number of social and labour disputes, disputes linked to the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation, and cases involving nationalization, asset confiscation, and forced alienation of property. The article also analyses trends in administrative cases related to social guarantees for servicemen, veterans, and internally displaced persons, including disputes on housing benefits, compensation, indexing of pensions, and payments due to disability or death in service. A significant portion of the disputes concerns the activities of state enforcement officers, private bailiffs, and notaries. The analysis demonstrates that complaints against decisions, actions, and omissions of enforcement officials remain the most frequent category, reflecting the ongoing challenges of effective execution of court decisions. Another important area includes cases on recognition of legal acts as unlawful, termination of citizenship, activities of legal entities, liquidation of pro-Russian organizations, and disputes over state registration of civil status acts. Several categories of cases are directly linked to war-related legal transformations, particularly concerning mobilization, payment of financial assistance, and the social protection of military personnel. The results reveal systemic trends that characterize the role of the Ministry of Justice in Ukraine’s administrative and judicial landscape. The article highlights the need to improve legal regulation in the areas of enforcement, social protection, wartime compensation mechanisms, and guardianship and custody activities. The findings contribute to understanding the evolving legal environment under wartime conditions and point to areas where further regulatory and institutional reforms are required.