Legal Alliance Partner Irina Pustovitenko Participates in Round Table Discussion of Procedural Law Enforcement Problems
A round table discussion focusing on procedural law enforcement ran in Simferopol on 29 May 2009 with the support of the Ukrainian Bar Association.
The event was organised by the Crimean Bar Association (chair Mr Vladimir Zubarev), Istina Crimean Centre for Legal and Social Studies (chair Mr Mikhail Aliabyshev) and the Crimean division of the Ukrainian Bar Association (chair Mr Viktor Mokrushin).
By its concept, the round table targeted those law professionals who were concerned with the subject and who had issues to offer for discussion. To great surprise of the hosts, the number of candidate issues exceeded 160. Among those fit in the discussion schedule were good-faith of trial parties in exercising their procedural rights; court obligations and right to call for evidence; need and reasonability of all-out process audio recording. A lively debate was focused on viability of a single procedure code for civil, economic and administrative proceedings. Opinions divided: advocates of the single procedure included the supporters of a complete unification of the judicial process in Ukraine. The opponents had their reasons to put forward: singularity of structure, techniques and tools of each type of the process.
Viktor Mokrushin, judge for the Crimean Economic court, paid most of his attention to the practice of appellations acceptance by the Supreme Court of Ukraine. In general, Mr Mokrushin marked usefulness of such events in the future: he believed they not only broaden the outlooks but as well develop uniform approaches to existing concerns. The event is open to anyone who wishes to offer a subject for discussion; the others could join the debate based on the final agenda, presenting their vision of outstanding problems and ways to address them.
Legal Alliance was represented at the round table by Ms Irina Pustovitenko. In describing her experience she said, "Crimea has always been fairly special in that associations between people practising law were not common — for a number of reasons. The value of this event is therefore in the fact that it brought together those who chose not to hold back their own understanding of law conflicts and gaps and shared their valuable experience, gained often amid conceptual clashes with the system. The young were involved as well: matters they raised demonstrate professionalism, willingness to make decisions and achieve adequate results."
Summing up outcomes of the event the attendees agreed that such joint discussions should become regular. In addition to the near-term objective: to continue discussion of enforcement issues formulated they set a longer-term goal: to find ways to practically influence the developments.
