Filtration as a category of procedural doctrine

The relevance of this paper is determined by the growing importance of filtering mechanisms in contemporary models of justice, which is directly linked to the reform of the judicial system of Ukraine, the transition to a model of limited cassation, and the rethinking of the functional role of higher courts. Despite the normative regulation of procedural admissibility requirements for complaints, the concept of a “filter” remains doctrinally heterogeneous and is employed across different branches of procedural law with varying substantive meanings. This situation necessitates a comprehensive scholarly analysis of modern approaches to filtration as a mechanism that is both selective and, at the same time, protective. The purpose of the paper is to systematise and synthesise contemporary scholarly approaches to the understanding of filtration in international, constitutional, civil, criminal, and other types of procedure, with a view to identifying the current state of development of the academic interpretation of this concept and revealing the dominant trends in its further conceptualisation. The methodological framework of the study is based on the doctrinal method, used to systematise scholarly positions concerning the concept of the “filter” and its functional purpose. Institutional and axiological approaches are also applied in order to assess the role of filters in balancing the effectiveness of justice, the unity of judicial practice, and the individual’s right of access to a court. As a result of the study, it is substantiated that the concept of a “filter” in contemporary doctrine appears as a multidimensional procedural-law construct, the common core of which is the selective function of access to legal adjudication. It is demonstrated that, in the European and constitutional-procedural dimensions, filtration is conceptualised primarily as an institutional mechanism for managing judicial workload, whereas in cassation proceedings it functions as an admission regime oriented towards the development of law and the maintenance of the unity of judicial practice. In criminal procedure, filters acquire a distinctly protective character, serving as safeguards against formalism and violations of the rights of participants in proceedings. Prospects for further research are associated with a deeper analysis of the relationship between filtering mechanisms and judicial discretion, as well as with the development of an inter-branch typology of filters capable of reducing legal uncertainty and enhancing the predictability of law enforcement in the context of ongoing judicial reforms.