Currently, there are a number of regulatory, doctrinal, and practical inconsistencies that complicate effective interaction between lawyers and legal consultants, create uneven application of the law, and in some cases violate the principle of accessibility of legal aid, which requires a systematic analysis and development of recommendations for improving current legislation.
A lawyer in Ukraine is a lawyer with a special legal status, whose activities are regulated by a special law. According to the Law of Ukraine «On Advocacy and Legal Practice», to obtain the status of a lawyer, one must have a higher legal education, work experience in the field of law for at least two years, successfully pass a qualifying exam, undergo an internship and take the Oath of a Lawyer of Ukraine. [3]
The law establishes the possibility of avoiding insanity (singles and types of activities that are unreasonable with the practice of law) and the prohibition of engaging in legal activity for certain categories of individuals.
A lawyer conducts his/her activities in the organizational forms established by law - individually, through a law firm or association. It is important that the advocacy is a self-governing professional community, and each lawyer must comply with the Rules of Lawyer Ethics, ensure lawyer confidentiality, and improve his/her professional level. Violation of these obligations is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including deprivation of the right to practice. [1]
In addition to duties, the law grants lawyers broader powers to provide legal assistance to clients. In particular, attorney-client privilege guarantees the confidentiality of relations with clients - the law expressly prohibits requiring lawyers or their employees to disclose such information.
Another tool is a lawyer's request, to which state bodies and other addressees are obliged to respond, and for ignoring which liability is established. [1]
Appropriate guarantees provide the lawyer with special opportunities to gather information and protect the client's rights.
Unlike lawyers, the activities of legal advisors are not directly regulated by a special law.
The term «legal consultant» usually refers to lawyers who provide legal advice, recommendations and guidance, prepare documents or work as lawyers (in the staff of enterprises or institutions), but have not received a bar certificate. To work as a legal consultant, it is enough to have a law degree. The law does not require additional certification or membership in a professional organization. [1]
Legal consultants are subject to general labor and civil law, rather than a separate professional law. Thus, legal consultants do not have a clearly defined regulatory status and professional restrictions, as lawyers do. They are free to choose their field of activity and combine legal work with other positions. However, the state does not provide them with any special professional rights or guarantees. In particular, information received by a legal advisor from a client is not protected by legal secrecy at the legislative level - to maintain confidentiality, such specialists can only conclude a separate non-disclosure agreement with the client. But even a confidentiality agreement does not provide the same level of protection that the law guarantees to a lawyer. [1]
A legal advisor also does not have the right to request a lawyer's request, so his ability to collect the information necessary for the case (evidence in the case) is limited compared to a lawyer. An important difference between lawyers and legal consultants is the right to represent the interests of other persons in courts and to provide defense in criminal proceedings. The Constitution of Ukraine (as amended after the 2016 judicial reform) established that «only a lawyer shall represent
another person in court, as well as provide defense against criminal charges». [2]
That is, today only a lawyer (with some exceptions specified by law) can represent individuals or legal entities in courts of any instance and be a defense attorney for suspects/accused in criminal cases.
The relevant constitutional provision has defined the distinction: a lawyer is a subject of professional legal assistance who has the exclusive right to judicial representation, while other lawyers are deprived of such a general right. The relevant provisions are also reflected in the relevant law: representation of a client in court proceedings and before state authorities is explicitly defined as one of the types of advocacy activities. [3]
Thus, a lawyer in the legal system of Ukraine is a lawyer with an officially recognized status who has undergone special qualifications and received a certain «monopoly» on key aspects of legal aid (legal representation, defense in criminal proceedings). A legal consultant (legal advisor), in turn, is a specialist in the field of law without attorney status, who can advise, prepare documents, work in legal departments of enterprises, but is not endowed with special professional rights and guarantees and cannot fully represent the interests of another person in court (except when expressly permitted by law or when acting as a full-time representative of his institution).
Differences in legal status also determine the specifics of interaction: lawyers are subject to the control of the disciplinary bodies of the bar and have self-government, while the activities of legal consultants are controlled only by the employer or regulated by the terms of a civil law contract with the client.
After the declaration of independence of Ukraine, the legal field for the provision of legal aid was only being formed. In 1991, legislation was in force that allowed legal practice on the basis of a state license: according to the Law of Ukraine «On Entrepreneurship», legal services could be provided by persons with a legal education, having received a license from the Ministry of Justice. [4]
That is, in the early 1990s, it was possible for any lawyer to work as a «lawyer-entrepreneur» in the legal services market. At that time, courts also allowed a fairly wide participation of lawyers who did not have the status of attorneys: close relatives, legal representatives of the accused, as well as other persons with the permission of the court could act as defense attorneys in criminal cases [4]. In fact, the institute of advocacy did not yet have a monopoly position - there were state and private legal consultancies, legal advisors at enterprises, and other specialists who provided legal assistance.
An important step in changing the relevant situation was the adoption on December 19, 1992 of the first special Law of Ukraine «On Advocacy». [4]
This law established the foundations of the legal profession in the new conditions and assigned it a leading role in ensuring the right of citizens to protection and legal assistance.
For the first time, the status of a lawyer, the rights and obligations of persons practicing law, and the organizational forms of the legal profession were defined at the legislative level.
Although this law gave a certain prestige to the legal profession, legal advisors continued to play a significant role in the 1990s. Many state institutions and enterprises had their own legal services, full-time lawyers who represented their interests in courts (mainly in commercial and civil disputes) on the basis of a power of attorney. Thus, in the first decade of independence, a mixed system developed: lawyers had a special status under the 1992 law, but there was no «monopoly» on representation - other lawyers could act alongside lawyers in legal proceedings.
On July 5, 2012, the modern Law of Ukraine «On Advocacy and Legal Activity» was adopted, replacing the 1992 law. [3]
The new law introduced a single self-governing National Bar Association, detailed the rights, obligations, and guarantees of lawyers, introduced the institution of a lawyer's request, and established new rules for access to the profession. However, it did not directly regulate the status of other lawyers (non-lawyers), as before. At the time of the adoption of this law (2012), Ukrainian legislation still had «dual» regulation: on the one hand, the legal profession received an updated legislative framework, and on the other, procedural codes allowed representatives without a bar certificate to participate in civil and commercial proceedings.
For example, until 2016, the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine provided that any capable person who has reached the age of 18, with a duly certified power of attorney, could be a representative in court. [5]
Similarly, legal entities could entrust the conduct of cases in courts to their in-house lawyers. In criminal proceedings, however, the law had already established stricter restrictions - since 2012, the Criminal Procedure Code has determined that only a lawyer can be a defense attorney [5], thereby consolidating the long-standing tradition that in criminal cases only a professional lawyer can defend the accused.
In the period 2012-2016, there were discussions on the advisability of granting the bar a «monopoly» on representation in courts. The legal community advocated a European approach, according to which high-quality legal assistance in courts should be provided by lawyers (due to their qualifications and accountability).
At the same time, the business community and some academics warned that sharply restricting the right to representation by lawyers alone could complicate access to justice, especially for small businesses and citizens who are accustomed to trusting their legal advisors or relatives. These debates laid the groundwork for the constitutional changes that took place in 2016.
The judicial reform initiated in 2016 has significantly changed the balance of powers between advocates and other legal professionals. The Law of Ukraine «On Amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine (Regarding Justice)» introduced a provision that «a bar association shall operate in Ukraine to provide professional legal assistance» and, as stated above, only a lawyer represents another person in court and provides defense in criminal proceedings. [1; 5]
The Final and Transitional Provisions of these amendments provided for a gradual implementation of the new rules of representation: the new constitutional requirement came into force in stages for different judicial instances.
Thus, according to the reform, from January 1, 2017, only lawyers were entitled to represent the interests of individuals in the Supreme Court and courts of cassation; from January 1, 2018, this requirement extended to courts of appeal; and from January 1, 2019, to courts of first instance. [8] Thus, from the beginning of 2019, only a lawyer (or a legal representative in cases specified by law) can represent a party in any court of general jurisdiction. At the same time, exceptions were defined, enshrined in both the Constitution and procedural legislation: without the status of a lawyer, representation in labor disputes, disputes regarding the protection of social rights, electoral disputes, as well as representation of minor cases and representation of minors or incapacitated persons by their legal representatives is allowed. [6].
These exceptions were intended not to unduly restrict access to justice in sensitive categories of cases.
In order to implement the constitutional changes, the parliament adopted new versions of the procedural codes (Civil, Commercial, Administrative) in 2017. They stipulate that only a lawyer or a close relative/guardian (for individuals who cannot conduct the case on their own) may be a representative in court. [5]
For example, Article 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, as amended after the reform, explicitly provided: from January 1, 2019, only a lawyer or legal representative shall represent interests in court. Similar provisions appeared in the Domestic Procedural Code (Article 28) and the Code of Administrative Procedure (Article 55).
At the same time, procedural codes introduced the concept of «self-representation»: an individual can represent his own interests (which is a natural law), and a legal entity can act through its leader or a member of the executive body authorized to act on his behalf (without a separate lawyer).
This self-representation mechanism to a certain extent preserved the opportunity for enterprises to participate in court by their own employees, but only at the level of managers. A full- time legal adviser, who is not a lawyer, after 2019 could no longer represent the enterprise in court by proxy, unless he was formally part of the company's governing body.
The judicial reform of 2016 actually fixed the delineation of the spheres of activity of lawyers and other lawyers. Since then, lawyers have received exclusive powers in the judicial sphere - they have become the only ones who, on a professional basis, can represent principals in courts of all instances (with some exceptions), as well as the only professional defenders in criminal proceedings. Legal consultants outside the bar were formally excluded from participation in litigation as representatives of third parties. Their activities after 2016 focused mainly on consulting, preparing documents, ensuring the legal work of organizations, that is, on extrajudicial aspects of legal assistance. The interaction between these two communities has changed: often legal advisers are now forced to cooperate with lawyers, concluding contracts with external law firms for representation in court, while internal legal departments prepare materials and case strategy.
There was a practice when experienced legal advisers of enterprises themselves acquired the status of a lawyer in order to continue to represent the interests of the employer in the courts. Some organizations have introduced positions related to the management team (for example, the director of legal affairs) to which qualified lawyers are appointed - this allows them to self-represent the enterprise in court without the involvement of outside lawyers. [7]
Thus, the reform of 2016 significantly influenced the division of powers: lawyers became indispensable participants in lawsuits, and the role of other lawyers in courts was reduced to a minimum, which increased the importance of the bar, but at the same time posed new challenges to the legal services of enterprises and citizens seeking legal assistance.
The introduction of a «lawyer's monopoly» in Ukraine took place in a relatively short time, which caused a number of problems in law enforcement, especially at the transitional stage. First, there were conflicts between the new constitutional provisions and the current at that time procedural rules. Although the amendments to the Constitution came into force in September 2016, in practice a complete transition to representation by lawyers took place gradually until 2019. During this period, the courts sometimes interpreted the norms differently. Such inconsistency of judicial practice at the beginning of the reform created confusion for the participants in the processes.
Secondly, there were difficulties with confirming the powers of a lawyer. The new procedural rules required that the lawyer confirm his authority with a legal aid agreement or warrant. In practice, at first there were questions whether only a copy of the lawyer's certificate was enough, or it was necessary to provide a warrant every time. The relevant issue was gradually clarified by judicial practice and amendments to the legislation (it was established that the contract or warrant are proper confirmations, and the court itself can additionally check the status in the Unified Register of Lawyers) [9]. However, in the beginning there were cases when the consideration of cases was delayed due to formal shortcomings in the certificate of authority - for example, the absence of a warrant or its incorrect execution.
Thirdly, a certain problem was the organization of legal assistance for legal entities and authorities. If earlier the company could entrust the conduct of the case to its regular lawyer, then after 2019 it was necessary either to hire an outside lawyer, or to provide self-representation through the head. Many institutions are faced with the need to review the functions of their legal departments. There was a legal conflict: can a lawyer be a full-time employee of the enterprise and at the same time be considered an independent subject of advocacy?
In practice, this issue was resolved through the conclusion of civil law contracts with lawyers or by bringing the status of legal adviser into line (some lawyers resigned and transferred to the bar, continuing to serve the same employer as external consultants). Administrative courts later clarified that a self-employed person-lawyer is not deprived of the right to work under an employment contract, that is, a lawyer can be an employee of the enterprise [10], which to some extent facilitated the situation: large companies began to require their legal advisers to obtain a lawyer's certificate and take them to the staff already as lawyers. However, this issue remained vaguely regulated by law, which created the risks of double taxation, issues with ERU, etc. [10]
Fourth, it should be noted collisions in the application of exceptions to the «lawyer monopoly.»The Constitution and laws provided for certain exceptions (labor disputes, social, minor cases, etc.), but the definition of a «minor case» or the attribution of a particular dispute to labor is not always obvious. In the early years, reformed courts differently assessed whether a non-lawyer could be allowed in a particular case. Some attempts to circumvent the requirement ran into formalism: for example, if the representative mistakenly referred to the labor nature of the dispute, and the court considered the dispute civil - the power of attorney of the «non-lawyer» was recognized as improper, and the party was deprived of representation to involve a lawyer.
So, the first years after the introduction of the lawyer's monopoly highlighted a number of problems of practice: the inconsistency of old norms with new principles, the interpretation of transitional provisions by courts, organizational difficulties for companies and the risks of excessive formalism. These problematic points became the subject of attention of both judicial practice (decisions of Plenums of higher courts, legal positions of the Supreme Court) and professional discussions on further improvement of legislation.
In the legal community, there is still a discussion about the optimal limits of the activities of lawyers and other lawyers. Proponents of expanding the role of the bar emphasize that the monopoly of lawyers in the courts is a European standard designed to improve the quality of legal assistance and professionalism of representatives. According to the National Association of Advocates of Ukraine, in many European countries the exclusive right of lawyers to representation has been operating for decades. For example, in Germany and Austria, the policy of introducing a lawyer's monopoly began more than 50 years ago. [11]
In general, from 48 European countries in 33 states, the lawyer has a monopoly on protection in criminal cases, and in 18 countries - also on representation in civil courts. [11]
Such figures are cited as an argument that Ukraine is moving in line with the pan-European trend, increasing the status of the bar. It is further emphasized that the Bar as a self-governing institution more effectively controls the quality of services and ethical behavior of lawyers than would be possible for disparate lawyers without uniform standards. Some scholars propose to consider the lawyer's monopoly as a guarantee of the implementation of Article 59 of the Constitution (the right to legal assistance) and believe that all types of legal services related to representation should be provided by lawyers. [12]
In numerous scientific works on this issue, it is substantiated that the legal status of a lawyer should be understood as a combination of professional rights, obligations and guarantees established by law, and that only persons with such status have the appropriate level of responsibility to the client and the law. [12]
Proponents of a more flexible approach criticize excessive monopolization. They note that the profession of a broad-based lawyer (legal adviser) should also have normative recognition. It is noted
that the modern requirements of business and society require various legal services, and not all of them are associated with judicial representation. Legal advisers play a significant role in the corporate sector, in contractual work, in ensuring compliance with the law in the activities of companies. Scientists ask the question: should all practicing lawyers be forced to become lawyers, or is it better to develop mechanisms of cooperation between the Bar Institute and the Institute of Legal Consultants? Some experts proposed to introduce a separate professional self-governing organization or register of legal advisers in order to establish standards of qualification, ethics and responsibility for them, without forcing them to go through the entire procedure of access to the bar.
A separate area of discussion was the abolition of the lawyer's monopoly. In 2019-2020 the new political authorities of Ukraine initiated amendments to the Constitution to abolish the exclusive right of lawyers to representation. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy submitted the relevant bill, and on January 14, 2020, the Supreme Council of Ukraine previously approved it, supporting in the first reading the idea of removing from the Constitution the provision on «exclusively lawyer» representation. [13]
The corresponding initiative received a rather different assessment in professional circles. Some lawyers (mostly from the business environment) congratulated her, pointing out that this would return flexibility in choosing a representative and eliminate unnecessary barriers to access to justice. Others - primarily the advocacy community and supporters of the «monopoly» - regarded the abolition as a step back from the European course of Ukraine. They emphasized that such frequent changes in constitutional rules undermine the stability of the legal system: after all, the Constitutional Court in 2016 supported the lawyer's monopoly, and in a few years it was proposed to abolish it. [13] All this indicates the ambiguity of the issue even among legislators: there is a dilemma between ensuring high standards of legal assistance (through the institute of advocacy) and guaranteeing a wide choice of representative for citizens and organizations. Scientific approaches to solving this dilemma differ. Some authors insist that the prestige and capacity of the bar should be increased, but at the same time the bar should become more open: to simplify access to the profession, to recognize the experience of legal advisers during the qualification assessment, etc. It is proposed, for example, to count the long-term successful activity of a legal adviser as confirmation of the practical experience necessary to obtain a lawyer's certificate in order to stimulate the professional integration of lawyers into the bar. Another approach is to create legal conditions for lawyers to cooperate with non-lawyers. Currently, the law prohibits a lawyer from engaging in professional activities in partnership with a non-lawyer [13], but a number of scholars believe that joint teams, where lawyers are responsible for judicial representation, and legal advisers for preparatory, advisory work, could increase the effectiveness of legal assistance. To this end, it is proposed to mitigate the relevant restrictions by allowing mixed law firms with a clear delineation of areas of responsibility. In general, the legal doctrine of Ukraine is currently looking for a balance between two models: the first is the bar as an exclusive professional channel for providing legal assistance in the courts; the second is a pluralistic system, where, along with lawyers, a certain part of the functions can be performed by other certified lawyers.
Consensus has not yet been reached, which is reflected in fluctuations in legislative policy. However, all parties agree that the main goal - to provide quality legal assistance and access to justice - should remain a priority for any changes.
An analysis of the current state of affairs shows the need for a subtle regulation of legislation in order to establish interaction between the bar and the institute of legal consultants and eliminate the identified problems.
In the context of modern challenges to law enforcement practice, it seems appropriate to raise the issue of legislative regulation of the legal status of legal advisers (legal advisers) as entities providing legal assistance outside the bar. Given the existing legal gaps and conflicts, it is worth considering the possibility of adopting a separate legal act or amending the current legislation in order to determine their role, legal status and limits of professional responsibility.
It seems expedient to establish at the legislative level the minimum qualification requirements for such persons (in particular, the availability of higher legal education, the relevant experience in
the specialty), the introduction of ethical standards, as well as the possible creation of an official register of certified legal consultants. The introduction of such a register would not equate consultants with lawyers, but would give their activities some official recognition and lay the foundations for establishing clear standards of professional responsibility to clients.
In view of this, it would be advisable to give legal advisers a limited amount of quasi-lawyer powers in the extrajudicial sphere, in particular: the right to make advisory requests to state authorities and local self-government; duty of confidentiality (professional secrecy of the client) with the establishment of legal liability for its violation. Such a model would increase the level of confidence in legal services provided outside the legal profession, as well as promote constructive interaction of lawyers with in-house lawyers (for example, in the form of official involvement of consultants as assistants or experts in specific cases).
Practice shows that granting the head of the enterprise the right to self-representation is not always a sufficient mechanism for effectively protecting the interests of a legal entity in court. In this regard, it is advisable to amend the procedural legislation in order to expand the list of subjects of representation. In particular, enterprises should be allowed to delegate the right of representation to full-time legal advisers without mandatory acquisition of legal status, provided that such an employee meets certain criteria (availability of higher legal education, stay in labor relations with the enterprise). Such a rule could be enshrined as a special exception in the relevant procedural codes. If such a settlement contradicts the constitutional provisions, it may be necessary to clarify the concept of «a member of the executive body authorized to act on behalf of a legal entity,»expanding it to the heads of legal units, if such a provision is enshrined in the charter or other constituent document.
It is also important to legalize and stimulate institutional interaction between lawyers and legal advisers. At the level of subordinate normative legal acts (in particular, decisions of the Council of Advocates of Ukraine), it is advisable to develop standards for cooperation of lawyers with full-time lawyers of clients, clearly outlining the boundaries of responsibility: lawyer - for procedural strategy and actions in court; legal counsel - for the preparation of evidence, documents, legal position. In addition, it is worth considering the possibility of a limited partnership of lawyer associations with legal consultants, for example, by creating associated structures, consulting units or providing consultants with the right of an advisory vote within the framework of a lawyer's education. In a number of countries (for example, in the UK), such a model successfully functions on the basis of the distribution of functions between solicitors and barristers.
Ukraine could adapt such a model to its legal realities, without undermining the principles of the Bar, but also without ignoring the potential of highly qualified lawyers outside its borders.
In parallel with legislative improvement, it is necessary to provide effective information and explanatory support. As practice shows, even effective legislative innovations can be leveled due to their ambiguous or erroneous interpretation by law enforcement entities. In view of this, it is important that the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the Council of Advocates of Ukraine and other relevant bodies develop unified approaches to the interpretation of controversial norms. Particularly relevant are the issues of confirming the powers of the representative, the mechanism for applying exceptions to the general rule on legal representation, as well as actions in case of loss of the status of a lawyer during the proceedings. It is advisable to include specialized training modules on modern aspects of representation and interaction between lawyers and legal consultants in the training programs for judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers and public administration.
Summarizing the above, it should be emphasized: further development of legislative regulation should be aimed at harmonizing the legal status of lawyers and legal consultants, while ensuring high standards of legal assistance. The presence of clear and balanced rules of legal coexistence and interaction of these subjects will contribute to the realization of the right of each person to quality, accessible and effective legal support. Regardless of the chosen model - the preservation of the lawyer's monopoly or its mitigation - the primary task of the legislator should be to guarantee professional responsibility, ethics, professionalism and proper communication between all subjects of legal activity.
References:
1. Chym vidrizniaietsia advokat vid yurysta [Електронний ресурс] // S&P Partners. - Режим доступу: https://s- partners.org/uk/chem-otlichaetsya-advokat-ot-y
2. Конституція Украүни: Закон Украүни від 28 червня 1996 р. № 254к/96-ВР [Електронний ресурс] // Верховна Рада Украүни. - Режим доступу: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254к/96-вр
3. Про адвокатуру та адвокатську діяльність: Закон Украүни від 5 липня 2012 р. № 5076-VI [Електронний ресурс] // Верховна Рада Украүни. - Режим доступу: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/5076-17
4. Адвокатура Украүни // Вікіпедія: вільна енциклопедія [Електронний ресурс]. - Режим доступу: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Адвокатура_Украүни
5. Хто мағ право представляти інтереси особи у суді [Електронний ресурс] // Юридична газета. - Режим доступу: https://yur-gazeta.com/golovna/hto-mae-pravo-predstavlyati-interesi-osobi-u-sudi.html
6. Про судову практику забезпечення права на захист [Електронний ресурс] // sa.dn.ua. - Режим доступу: https://sa.dn.ua/pro-sudovu-praktiku-zabezpechennya-pra/4/
7. Верховна Рада проголосувала за скасування адвокатськоү монополіү [Електронний ресурс] // Право.UA. - Режим доступу: https://pravo.ua/articles/verhovna-rada-progolosuvala-za-skasuvannja-advokatskoi- monopolii/
8. Коли адвокату доведеться підтверджувати своғ право на подання скарги в інтересах кліғнта [Електронний ресурс] // Protocol. - Режим доступу: https://protocol.ua/ua/koli_advokatu_dovedetsya_pidtverdguvati_svoe_pravo_na_podannya_skargi_v_interesah_klienta
/
9. Судова практика: за відсутності адвоката [Електронний ресурс] // Верховний Суд Украүни. - Режим доступу: https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pres-centr/news/1750109/
10. Адвокат й одночасно найманий працівник: який розмір ҒСВ потрібно сплачувати [Електронний ресурс] // LIGA:ЗАКОН. - Режим доступу: https://buh.ligazakon.net/news/229121_advokat-y-odnochasno-naymaniy- pratsvnik-yakiy-rozmr-sv-potrbno-splachuvati
11. Скасування виключного права адвокатів на представництво у судах стане відступом від закріпленого в Конституціү Украүни ғвропейського курсу [Електронний ресурс] // Національна асоціація адвокатів Украүни. - Режим доступу: https://unba.org.ua/publications/4746-skasuvannya-viklyuchnogo-prava-advokativ-na-predstavnictvo- u-sudah-stane-vidstupom-vid-zakriplenogo-v-konstitucii-ukraini-evropejs-kogo-kursu.html
12. Професія юриста в сучасному правовому просторі [Електронний ресурс] // Вісник Ужгородського національного університету. Серія: Право. - Режим доступу: https://visnyk-juris-uzhnu.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/08/24.pdf
13. Без адвокатськоү монополіү: що зміниться для громадян і юристів [Електронний ресурс] // LB.ua. - Режим доступу: https://lb.ua/pravo/2020/01/15/447193_bez_advokatskoi_monopolii_shcho.html
доктор PhD (Чехия), Кандидат юридических наук, профессор
Высшей школы права «Әділет» Каспийского Университета
Аннотация. Статья посвящена исследованию института финансового арбитра как механизма внесудебного разрешения споров между потребителями и финансовыми организациями. На примере Чешской Республики рассмотрены правовые основы деятельности финансового арбитра, регулируемые Законом «О финансовом арбитре», а также их связь с европейскими директивами об альтернативном урегулировании потребительских споров. Финансовый арбитр в Чехии является государственным органом, назначаемым правительством, и рассматривает широкий круг споров, включая кредиты, страхование, инвестиции и пенсионные продукты, в порядке административного производства. Особое внимание уделено практике рассмотрения споров по потребительским кредитам, в том числе вопросам досрочного погашения и проверки кредитоспособности заемщика. Проведен сравнительный анализ с институтом банковского омбудсмана в Казахстане, отмечены различия в правовом статусе и подотчетности. Сделан вывод о большей прозрачности и
независимости института финансового арбитра в странах ЕС по сравнению с казахстанской моделью омбудсмана.
Ключевые слова: финансовый арбитр, потребительские споры, банковский омбудсман, законодательство Чешской Республики, законодательство Республики Казахстан.
Возможность обращения в арбитраж предусмотрена законодательством различных стран. Однако правовое регулирование арбитража, как и его понятие и функции, может отличаться в зависимости от страны. Это может быть частный суд или арбитраж с отдельными государственными функциями. Например, в Республике Казахстан в соответствии с п.4 ст. 4 Закона РК «Об арбитраже» от 8 апреля 2016 года № 488-V, арбитраж не может быть образован государственными органами, государственными предприятиями, а также субъектами естественных монополий и субъектами, занимающими доминирующее положение на рынке товаров и услуг, юридическими лицами, пятьдесят и более процентов голосующих акций (долей участия в уставном капитале) которых прямо или косвенно принадлежат государству. В европейских странах, однако, наряду с частными арбитражами, существуют специализированные арбитражи, регулируемые непосредственно государством. Примером