Three quarters of a century have passed since March 11, 1923, when the Supreme Court of Ukraine commenced its activity. It was on that very date that it truly combined the functions of the United Superior Tribunal of the Ukrainian SSR and those of the Department of Judicial Supervision of the People’s Commissariat of Justice of the Ukrainian SSR and became a single judicial center of the Republic which, according to the terminology in use at the time, was called the Superior Court of the Ukrainian SSR. This was the result of radical changes in legislation regulating judicial activity in the state that were characterized by legal scholars as the 1922 judicial reform in the Ukrainian SSR.

Shortly before, on December 16, 1922, the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee approved a resolution that affirmed the Regulations of the Judicial System of the Ukrainian SSR and put them into effect as of February 1, 1923. Article 1 of these Regulations reads that “in order to provide for the interests of the State and the rights of workers, a united system of judicial institutions shall function on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR including 1) people’s courts consisting of a permanent people’s judge, 2) people’s courts consisting of a permanent people’s judge and two people’s assessors, 3) provincial² courts and 4) the Supreme Court of the Ukrainian SSR and its Judicial Boards.”

Until this time, justice in Ukraine was administered by 11 judicial bodies of various levels including special sessions of the courts, Councils of people’s courts, provincial revolutionary tribunals, military, transport and other tribunals - up to the United Superior Tribunal as well as by other bodies for whom this function was not intrinsic. A representative of the latter was Department IX of the People’s Commissariat of Justice (PCJ). In addition to its main functions, which included conducting audits and systematization of judicial practice, this department was vested with the right to review sentences pronounced by all courts of the republic that had gone into effect.

As a result of judicial reform, the United Superior Tribunal ceased its activity on March 10,1923, and the very next day the Supreme Court of the Ukrainian SSR solemnly began to fulfill its duties.

The Supreme Court of the Ukrainian SSR was to include 22 judges. During the period between March 1923 and October 1925, however, it consisted of only 13 judges. The first Chief Justice, or Head, of the Supreme Court of the Republic was Serhiy Feoktystovych Buzdalin, the son of a villager from the Kaluga province, a joiner at a St. Petersburg factory and later a worker at the Eriksson works in St. Petersburg. He had been persecuted by police for his participation in strikes and for this reason left for Kharkiv. After the October Revolution of 1917, he was the Chairman of the Kharkiv Rada (Council) of Deputies and later worked in Kursk. He was the People’s Commissar of Justice from May 1921 till February 1922. Later, before his appointment as Head of the Supreme Court, he was the Head of the Kharkiv District Executive Committee. The deputy heads of the highest court in the republic were the well known jurists S.L. Malitsky in civil cases and S.M. Kanarsky in criminal cases.

The Supreme Court included a Plenum, a Presidium, and Cassation and Judicial Boards in civil and criminal cases. The plenary meeting of the Supreme Court was authorized to give guiding explanations with regard to implementation of laws in judicial practice at the request of judicial boards, Presidium of the Supreme Court, Prosecutor of the Republic, or Deputy Prosecutor at the Supreme Court and to review sentences, decisions and rulings by the Judicial and Cassation Boards of the Supreme Court and other courts of the Republic at the request of the Presidium of All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee (hereinafter - AUCEC), the republic’s Prosecutor, the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, presiding officials at board sessions or prosecutors at the respective judicial boards. The Plenum of the Supreme Court included all the members of the Court. Decisions of its meetings were binding if no less than half of its members were present and if the meeting was conducted by the Head or the Deputy Head of the Supreme Court with obligatory participation of the Prosecutor of the Republic or the Senior Deputy Prosecutor.

The cases in Judicial and Cassation Boards were heard with the participation of permanent members of the Supreme Court. The Head of the Supreme Court was authorized to preside in any case or to delegate this function to the Deputy Head or to any judge of the court. The Cassation Board was authorized to hear civil as well as criminal cases if new facts were uncovered and if there was a corresponding conclusion by the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court. In the event that an individual civil or criminal case had already been considered at the cassation level of the Supreme Court, the protest had to be submitted to the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic. If there was a protest from the Prosecutor of the Republic, the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, the Head of the Supreme Court and the Deputy Head of the Supreme Court, then the sentences, decisions and rulings of all judicial bodies of the State that had gone into effect earlier were reviewed.

The staff structure of the Supreme Court for 1923 envisaged the formation of a Judicial Board Investigative Department in criminal cases which included six investigators for the most important cases. Their work was supervised by the Head of the Board and the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court had the authority to consider cases of special importance, submitted for consideration in correspondence with resolutions of the AUCEC and of the Council of People’s Commissars (hereinafter - CPC), the Prosecutor of the Republic and the chief of the State Political Board (hereinafter - GPU ³). As to personal cognizance, the Supreme Court had to consider cases pertaining to charges brought by AUCEC members, People’s Commissars, members of the Presidium of the Ukrainian National Economic Council, heads and members of the Provincial Executive Committees and of the Provincial Courts, members of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic, members of the Board of the GPU, plenipotentiary ambassadors of the State and their assistants.

The presidium of the Supreme Court included the Chief Justice or Head, Deputy Heads, heads of judicial and cassation boards in civil and criminal cases and, as a rule, carried out administrative functions.

Legislation of Ukraine at the beginning of the 1920s envisaged the functioning of military and military-transport tribunals. The military tribunal of the Ukrainian military district as well as the military-transport tribunal of the Commissioner of the People’s Commissariat of the Means of Transportation in Kharkiv were bodies that exercised judicial control over the tribunals that were subordinated to them. Nevertheless, the cassation instance (court of appeal-ed.) for all tribunals was also the Supreme Court.

One cannot but help but mention that Article 94 of the 1922 Regulations on the Judicial System of the Ukrainian SSR envisaged formation and functioning of Judicial Land Commissions for settling suits regarding land as well as arbitration commissions for the resolution of property disputes between state institutions and enterprises. The activity of both commissions was supervised by the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor of the Republic.

Adoption of Regulations on the Judicial System of the Ukrainian SSR on October 23, 1925, did not change the system proper. A united judicial system functioned in the Republic which included people’s courts, district courts, the Supreme Court of the Ukrainian SSR (in the Moldovan Autonomous SSR - people’s courts and the Main Court). Cases involving military crimes were heard by military tribunals while cases on criminal violation of the Labor Law Code were within competence of the labor session of the people’s courts.

A new regulation introduced the institution of people’s assessors which was intended for consideration of cases by the Supreme Court in the first instance. At the same time, it was also possible to have these cases heard by a panel of three permanent members of the court.

The regulation stipulated that the head, deputy heads and members of the military tribunal of Ukraine and the Crimea form a part of the Plenum of the Supreme Court working on a part-time basis. The Plenum of the Supreme Court also included the head of the Supreme Court of the Moldovan ASSR or its Deputy Head and representatives of the GPU who were elected as additional members of the court for participation in hearing cases at extraordinary sessions. An extraordinary session of the Supreme Court was composed of one permanent member (the presiding person) and two reserve members of the Supreme Court as well as workers of the GPU who were appointed to this position by the Presidium of AUCEC from the ranks of GPU workers. The Special Cassation (Appellate) Division consisted of two members of the Supreme Court and a representative of the GPU, who was a member of the Plenum of the Supreme Court.

In connection with this we cannot but focus our attention on the activity of the extraordinary sessions of Republic courts. From today’s standpoint, there is no substantiation for the functioning of such sessions in peacetime, especially because fundamental violations of legal procedure were committed and exceptions were allowed when observing the provisions of criminal procedure. For example, providing materials of the investigation to the defendant was not obligatory, defense attorneys were not permitted to attend court sessions, and the term for submitting a cassation appeal against the decision was 48 hours after sentencing. Moreover, the district prosecutor had the right to suspend the cassation appeal. In the Central State Archives of the high-level power bodies of Ukraine, there is a criminal case on the sentencing of a person to execution that was heard by an extraordinary session of the Kharkiv provincial court. The deputy prosecutor of the province did not permit the submission of a cassation appeal because, in his opinion, the crime had been proven and no violations of legal procedure had occurred. As to extraordinary sessions of the Supreme Court, its sentences were not even subject to a cassation appeal. In addition, it ought to be emphasized that extraordinary sessions were formed only in Ukraine; there were no such sessions in the other republics.

According to the Regulations on the Judicial System, the Supreme Court of Ukraine was vested with supervising activity of the Republic’s courts including the Superior Supervision Board ⁴ in Land-Related Cases and the Superior Arbitration Commission of the Ukrainian Economic Council. All of them were accountable to the Supreme Court and its Plenum issued instructions for them to observe in order to make correct decisions in individual cases.

The work of the courts as a whole and of the Supreme Court in particular was to a certain extent affected by later adoption of republican laws aimed at simplifying and expediting legal proceedings and strengthening judicial supervision of court activity. For example, the report of the Head of the Supreme Court of the Ukr. SSR includes data that indicate an improvement in the Supreme Court’s work in 1926. The report reads that each member of the Supreme Court had examined an average of 25 cases that resulted from submitted cassation appeals and 20 cases under the system of judicial supervision. The number of reviewed cases could have been increased to 50-60 had it not been for delays in the Prosecutor’s Office.

The 1925 Regulations on the Judicial System served as a basis for the Regulations on the Judicial System of the Ukr. SSR adopted by the AUCEC and the CPC (Council of People’s Commissars) of the Republic on September 11, 1929 and September 28, 1931. In accordance with the latter, the Supreme Court remained the sole court of Ukraine which was authorized to review -- under the system of judicial supervision and as a result of the appearance of new circumstances -- sentences, decisions and rulings of courts of the Republic that had entered into force.

The Supreme Court of the Ukrainian SSR, as well as other central bodies of the State, moved from Kharkiv to Kyiv in 1934. On January 24 of the same year the directive issuing bodies of the State adopted a resolution which entitled the Head of the Supreme Court of the Ukr. SSR to request judicial cases for reconsideration from lower-level courts under the system of supervision. No matter how paradoxical it may seem, previously he could do this only because of “operative considerations” and not as a result of appeals filed under the system of judicial supervision. The expanded authority of the Supreme Court gave its Head the right to request judicial cases even in correspondence with submitted complaints of workers and, if necessary, to suspend execution of valid judicial decisions in civil and criminal cases.

This resolution also expanded the rights of the Supreme Court of the Ukr. SSR, the Main Court of the Moldovan ASSR and oblast courts regarding the supervision of local courts. This document indicated that the People’s Commissariat of Justice (PCJ) had to control the courts through the Supreme Court of the State rather than directly. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court covered drafting of instructions for judicial practice, supervision, inspection and even accounting of the oblast courts and of the Main Court of the Moldovan SSR, organization and conduct of elections of the people’s assessors, supervision over resolution of personnel issues and use of disciplinary measures with regard to all employees of oblast courts and the organs of justice subordinated to them.

In connection with the above, it is necessary to keep in mind that previously, the PCJ, in compliance with legal statutory acts, executed the functions of judicial control. Even corrective labor institutions were subordinated to it. The People’s Commissar of Justice was simultaneously the Prosecutor General of the Republic. Combining judicial control and direction of the Prosecutor’s Office under the jurisdiction of a single institution cannot be considered an appropriate action because later, as the State, its legislative basis and especially the provisions related to the administration of justice developed, the special importance of the General Prosecutor became obvious whereas at the same time the highest juridical body of the State became dependent on the PCJ to a certain extent. It even reached the point where the publication and execution of guiding resolutions regarding implementation of laws by the courts, which had been prepared by the Plenum of the Supreme Court, had to be sanctioned by the PCJ and the latter was also granted the right to change or abrogate these resolutions.

In the course of time, the authority of the PCJ regarding supervision of the courts became more limited. The competence of the Presidium of the Supreme Court was sufficiently extended already in 1935 by a legislative act which authorized it to review, change or abrogate sentences and rulings of the Boards and special judicial panels of the Supreme Court of the Republic.

In July of 1936 the Office of the Prosecutor at the PCJ was reorganized as the Procuracy of the Republic and was headed by the Prosecutor General. The Prosecutor General was appointed by the AUCEC and was accountable both to it and to the Prosecutor of the USSR. Thus, the PCJ of the Ukr. SSR became a Union-and-Republic People’s Commissariat and a body of judicial supervision in Ukraine. Again, the competence of the Supreme Court included only judicial supervision and interpretation of laws for judicial practice.

The Constitution (Fundamental Law) of the Ukr. SSR was adopted in January 1937 and the Union Law on the Judicial System was approved in August 1938. This Law established that the Supreme Court of the Ukr. SSR was the highest judicial body of the Republic and was responsible for supervising the judicial activity of all courts of the Ukr. SSR. The law of 1938 changed the procedure for determining the membership of the Supreme Court. Previously, members had been appointed with no term limit by the Presidium of the AUCEC in response to requests made by the PCJ. Now members had to be elected by the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukr. SSR for a term of 5 years.

The Supreme Court of the Ukr. SSR was deprived of the right to give instructional explanations to the republic courts on issues related to judicial practice that had arisen in cases heard by the Court. This became a prerogative of the Union (USSR) Supreme Court. At the same time, lower level courts were guided by rulings of judicial boards of the Supreme Court of the Republic that had been made by the cassation instances as well as by those made under the system of judicial supervision. These rulings directed the activity of inferior courts towards correct implementation of legislative and other normative acts when deciding judicial cases. In other words, legislation at the end of the 1930s came very near to (establishing the principle of) judicial precedent.

But the peaceful development of the State, the law and legal procedure in Ukraine was interrupted by the war. The Supreme Court of the Republic suspended its work because most members and operative workers of the Court, including its Head K.T. Topchiy, went to serve in the system of military tribunals of fighting units. In August 1941, the Supreme Court of the Republic, which consisted of several employees, moved to Kharkiv, then to Saratov and later - to Moscow. The very complicated situation at the battle-front made impossible further functioning of the Supreme Court of Ukraine headed by Deputy Head in Civil Cases M.H. Rozanov, and its workers were called up or disbanded. Rozanov, in particular, was transferred to the Union PCJ, where he carried out certain assignments.

The liberation of Ukraine began after the crushing defeat of the fascists at Stalingrad in January 1943. The organs of State power and governance resumed their work on the liberated territory of Ukraine in the city of Starobilsk. Among these organs was the Supreme Court consisting of 5 members: Deputy Head in Civil Cases M.H. Rozanov, Deputy Head in Criminal Cases D.S. Suslo and three members of the court. After the liberation of Kharkiv, the Head of the Supreme Court of Ukraine K.T. Topchiy was recalled from the Army. Other members of the Supreme Court, who had been evacuated to the rear and who had held various offices mostly in the republics of Central Asia, were also recalled from their positions.

After the unification of Transcarpathian and Soviet Ukraine on November 26, 1944, the courts of the Transcarpathian oblast, including the Superior People’s Court of Transcarpathia located in the city of Uzhhorod, were brought under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Republic.

During its 75-year existence, the Supreme Court of the Ukr. SSR shared the fate of all Ukraine in that it experienced many severe ordeals, problems and difficulties. Many members of the Supreme Court were subjected to political repression and were later rehabilitated. In 1937 the Head of the Supreme Court Shumyatsky (a former political prisoner) was subjected to repression. In the years that followed, members of the Special Board of the Supreme Court Ozol and Schwartau and Deputy Head of the Supreme Court in Criminal Cases D.S. Suslo were also subjected to repression. Deputy Head of the Supreme Court Krasnoshchok and Court members Marchenko, Berdnykov, Lisovy, Fomin, Ponomarenko and Krysenko perished at the fronts of the Great Patriotic War.

The Supreme Court, as well as lower level courts, experienced substantial organizational difficulties after the expulsion of the German fascist aggressors. There was a shortage of qualified personnel. The professional education of many judges was limited to three-month courses. Because of this the Supreme Court had to expend much effort in order to turn judicial practice in the right direction at least to a certain extent.

Regretfully, in 1948 the Supreme Court lost its Head K.T. Topchiy and its Deputy Head M.H. Rozanov. They were accused of demonstrating liberalism with regard to thieves of state and public property. They were prematurely dismissed from their positions because in many cases they protested against harsh sentences and thereby incorrectly “oriented” the judicial organs of Ukraine. P.Kh. Noshchenko was elected Head of the Supreme Court and he held this position until 1957.

The first post-war years demanded mobilization of efforts, experience and knowledge of all employees of the Supreme Court to find the solution to the complex task of strengthening lawfulness under conditions of reconstruction and development of the national economy. The membership of the Supreme Court of these times consisted of such leaders and members of the Court as S.A. Kovpak, P.Kh. Noshchenko, S.I. Vozniuk, K.I. Zhurska, H.A. Ruban, P.S. Sklyar, A.I. Trubetska, etc., who selflessly worked in that period.

In 1950, T.S. Yevseyenko and O.N. Yakimenko were elected as members of the Supreme Court. The fruitful activity of the Supreme Court in recent decades is closely linked to the name of Oleksander Nikiforovych Yakimenko. He worked as a member of the Court from 1950-1954, as deputy head in civil cases from 1954-1963, and headed the Supreme Court of Ukraine from 1970-1994.

The Law on the Judicial System of Ukraine of June 30, 1960 maintained it without changes. The judicial system of Ukraine included people’s courts, oblast courts and the Supreme Court of Ukraine. The Constitution of Ukraine stated that the Supreme Court was the highest judicial body of the Republic and was vested with supervisory authority over all judicial bodies of the State. The Supreme Court was given the right of legislative initiative. Legislation affirmed the right of the Supreme Court to provide the courts with explanations directing them on how to implement the republic’s legislation during examination of civil and criminal cases on the basis of the generalization of judicial practice, statistical data and decisions in cases that had been heard by the Court.

In order to concentrate the supervision over courts in a single body, the Presidium of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted a Decree on March 21, 1963, which liquidated the Ministry of Justice and vested the Supreme Court with functions of judicial supervision and control over the bodies of the State notariate.

After the Ministry of Justice resumed its activity in 1970, the Supreme Court concentrated all its efforts on executing tasks connected with direct examination of civil and criminal cases and on exercising control over the activity of courts in the Republic. It reviewed cassation appeals and cases that sprang up as a result of regular supervision.

At the same time it is necessary to emphasize that the administrative-command system of those years as well as its underlying legislation did not provide opportunities for courts to reliably protect human rights and freedoms because the power functions of the court were very limited.

The current Law on the Judicial System of Ukraine was approved in June 1981. In accordance with its provisions, the Supreme Court of Ukraine performs extensive and highly significant work considering cassations and conducting supervision. It corrects mistakes of lower level courts and, in addition, guides them towards correct implementation of legislation in various branches of law.

After Ukraine declared independence in 1991, its development as a democratic, social and legal state began. The need arose to guide its development in the direction of democratic changes. This, in turn, mandated reform of the state’s entire legal system and, above all, changes in its legislation. This also applies completely to the judicial system.

In recent years approval of the Concept of Judicial and Legal Reform stands as an important achievement of the independent state and its judicial bodies. Its implementation is facilitated by a package of laws of Ukraine regulating the activity of courts and defining the status of judges of the courts of Ukraine. This package includes laws “On the Status Of Judges,” “On the Organization of Self-Government of Judges,” “On the Qualification Commissions, Qualification Attestation and Disciplinary Responsibility of the Judges of Courts of Ukraine,” “On State Protection of Court Employees and Law Enforcement Agencies,” “On the Superior Council of Justice,” etc. These acts provide opportunities for implementing certain measures aimed at reform of judicial bodies as well as renewal and development of the legal status of judges and courts of Ukraine.

Adoption of the new Constitution of Ukraine became the basis for further development of the legal state’s legislation that stood up for protection of individual and citizen rights and legal interests as qualities that have the highest societal value. Though Article 125 of the Constitution does not contain an exhaustive description of the judicial system, it establishes that the Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the judicial system among the courts of general jurisdiction. The Court consists of the Plenum and specialized judicial boards - civil, criminal and military.

The powers of the Supreme Court under the Constitution of Ukraine will be delineated in greater detail in an upcoming Law on the Judicial System, a draft of which was prepared by the Supreme Court and submitted to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court of Ukraine now attaches great importance to finding a suitable direction of activity for the courts of Ukraine, to developing an unambiguous approach for resolving problems which arise during the consideration of concrete civil, administrative and criminal cases, and for adopting resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine that contain explanations which can guide the courts.

In-depth and meticulous study of judicial practice precedes the adoption of resolutions.

Members of legal research institutes and members of the Supreme Court of Ukraine’s Research and Advisory Council, which includes practically all the leading legal experts of Ukraine, are brought in to take part in preparing draft resolutions.

Direct participation of judges of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in scientific and training seminars and conferences, their addresses to judges of lower level courts at workshops conducted by the Supreme Court of Ukraine’s Judicial Training Center and publishing in periodicals such as the journal “Bulletin of the Supreme Court of Ukraine“ or the annual “Decisions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine” all constitute very effective means for influencing the formation of judicial practice.

The judges and other workers of the Supreme Court concentrate their efforts on professional execution of their duties including consideration of civil, administrative and criminal cases, systematization of legislation and other statutory legal acts, generalization of judicial practice and analysis of judicial statistics, addressing citizen concerns and considering their appeals, preparing draft laws related to the problems of judicial legal reform and development of international legal cooperation, and the formation of a computer network for the courts of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court of Ukraine traversed a long and glorious 75-year long path. Its activity undoubtedly helps to improve the workings of the judicial system in Ukraine and to raise the level of implementing the administration of justice.

We are faced with a new and more complex task which follows from the establishment of Ukraine as a legal state based on the constitutional principles of the separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches that adhere to the principle of the Rule of Law. We are sure that the Supreme Court of Ukraine, as is fitting for the highest judicial body in the system of courts of general jurisdiction, is ready to honorably fulfill its mission.