Питання судового тлумачення і принцип юридичної визначеності

Changing the theoretical approaches to the definition of the essence and role of judicial interpretation, as well as consolidation the right to interpret the law by the Supreme Court, formulating the legal positions that are mandatory for lower courts, allowed judicial practice to become deeper and more expressive, gave it a creative beginning. At the same time, the excessive introduction of the creative element into law enforcement did not always leave it the opportunity to remain on the positions of reasonable predictability, and, therefore, to meet the criterion of legal certainty. The article is devoted to the analysis of changes in approaches to understanding judicial interpretation, as well as its practical implementation – in the context of compliance with the principle of legal certainty. In the process of work, the authors analyzed scientific researches and fundamental works, which summarized the main domestic views and approaches of theoretical value regarding judicial interpretation, and also the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The practice of the Supreme Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court was chosen thematically, in the context of the application of articles 174, 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The authors stated the appeal/return to hermeneutics as a methodological direction in jurisprudence in the process of analyzing the evolution of views on judicial interpretation. In this regard, the concept is supported that the norm of the law can not be dogmatic-constant; its modernization is carried out, in particular, through judicial interpretation; and that “thoutless-dogmatic adherence to the letter of the law” is not an example for imitation in the administration of justice. At the same time, it was stated the need to adopt in the end a fair and impartial court decision (in the broadest sense - as a judicial act). The latest changes in the practice of the Supreme Court regarding the appeal in the appellate procedure for the removal of the seizure of property within the framework of pre-trial investigation were analyzed for compliance with the above-mentioned provisions. It is concluded that the rapid redeparture from previous legal positions, despite its substituting (which is considered indirectly): 1) does not correspond to the wisdom, logic and professionalism of the court; 2) calls into question the fairness and impartiality of the judgment; 3) contrary to the principle of legal certainty. It is proposed to recognize appropriate doctrinal control over such cases of law enforcement.