Causes of Judicial Errors in the Administrative Process: Analysis of Objective and Subjective Factors

Abstract

The relevance of the topic is due to the fact that a judicial error in the administrative process is not only a violation of formal norms but also an instrument that can significantly affect the realization of individual rights and freedoms, especially under conditions of increasing burden on the judicial system, normative instability, and insufficient uniformity of law enforcement. The purpose of the article is to study the main causes of judicial errors in the administrative process of Ukraine, to analyze the objective and subjective factors of their occurrence, and to develop practical recommendations for preventing judicial errors.

The methodological basis of the study consists of general scientific and special legal methods. In particular, the method of system analysis was used to study the factors contributing to erroneous decision-making, the logical-dogmatic method was applied to clarify the categorical apparatus, and empirical methods were used to analyze the decisions of the Supreme Court, where the interpretation of judicial error is carried out.

As a result of the study, it was established that the defining characteristics of a judicial error are deviations from facts or legal norms, the inability to ensure procedural clarity, and the infliction of irreversible harm to individuals’ rights. This distinguishes judicial errors from legal misinterpretations, which remain within the bounds of judicial discretion. Objective causes of judicial errors are most often associated with the imperfection of legislation, legal gaps, conflicts of legal norms, insufficient resource provision of the judiciary, and a high level of professional workload. Subjective factors are mainly of a psychological, ethical, or qualification nature. Among them are distinguished inattention, bias, lack of sufficient experience, as well as the influence of emotional burnout and stress on the judge’s ability to objectively perceive the evidentiary base.

In conclusion, it is stated that effective prevention of judicial errors in the administrative process is possible only under the conditions of improving legislative regulation, enhancing the professional training of judges, reducing their workload, and introducing psychological support within the framework of institutional development of the judiciary. Special attention is recommended to the formation of a culture of critical reflection on judicial decisions through a system of internal control, decision analytics, and public monitoring of judicial practice.