Organization of Court Work in Ukraine During Martial Law

Abstract

The article examines the organization of court work in Ukraine during martial law as a complex organizational and legal issue that combines matters of continuity in the administration of justice, access to justice, safety of participants in judicial proceedings, proper resource provision, and digitalization of judicial proceedings. It is substantiated that the introduction of martial law does not alter the constitutional nature of justice, does not allow the establishment of extraordinary or special courts, the reduction or acceleration of any forms of judicial proceedings, and cannot serve as a ground for restricting a person’s right to judicial protection. The methodological basis of the article consists of formal legal, systemic, analytical, and comparative legal methods. It is determined that, under conditions of armed aggression, the organization of court work includes not only the internal operating regime of a particular court, but also a system of interrelated security, personnel, financial, logistical, procedural, and digital measures. Particular attention is focused on the significance of changing the territorial jurisdiction of court cases as an exceptional mechanism for ensuring access to justice in cases where certain courts are objectively unable to administer justice. At the same time, the need for further detailing of this mechanism is substantiated, in particular regarding the electronic transfer of case materials, notification of participants in proceedings, redistribution of judicial workload, and restoration of previous jurisdiction after the elimination of the circumstances that caused its change. The role of electronic justice, court hearings held by videoconference, electronic document management, and the Unified State Register of Court Decisions in maintaining the functional capacity of courts during martial law is revealed. It is concluded that promising areas for improving the organization of court work include the introduction of unified standards for security response, development of digital infrastructure, strengthening of cybersecurity, proper financing of courts, and enhancement of the personnel capacity of the judicial system.