Restrictions on Human Rights in the Field of Public Health in the Context of the Legal Positions of the Supreme Court

This article analyzes the problems of human rights restrictions in public health in the context of the Supreme Court's legal positions. The Supreme Court's significant role in ensuring a unified approach to judicial practice formation, which is implemented through forming legal positions on the application of substantive and procedural law, is noted. The regulatory and legal regulation of the Supreme Court's functions in generalizing judicial practice and ensuring the uniform application of legal norms by courts of different instances is analyzed, as well as the Supreme Court's individual legal positions in limiting human rights in the field of public health. It is indicated that procedural legislation grants the Supreme Court the right, in a certain order, to depart from previously formed legal positions, which are subject to mandatory consideration by all subjects of power when applying relevant legal norms, as well as by lower courts when considering legal disputes that have arisen in similar legal relations. The content of the concept of the "legal position of the Supreme Court" is disclosed, and it is clarified that such a concept includes mandatory conclusions on the application of specific legal norms, which are set out in the resolutions of the Court of Cassation, which are the results of judicial law enforcement activities. The following features of the Supreme Court's legal positions are identified: stability, a reference point in law enforcement, and enshrined in its decisions. It is substantiated that a component of the principle of the rule of law - the principle of unity of judicial practice, provides for the uniform application of legal norms during court proceedings and ensures the predictability of decisions in such disputes. It is stated that the legal positions of the Supreme Court are mandatory for state authorities and local self-government bodies when applying the relevant legal norms. It is found that the principle of unity of judicial practice is not absolute since procedural legislation empowers the Supreme Court to deviate from previously formed legal positions in the event of a change in legislation, the vagueness of the law, the issuance of a decision by the ECHR, or changes in legal understanding. Keywords: state, Supreme Court, legal position, human rights, proper to education, right to work, restriction of rights, denial of education, public health, private life.