Судовий контроль аргументації рішень суб’єктів владних повноважень: деякі стандарти національної, міжнародної та іноземної практики
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article presents a study of the content, forms, and regularities of judicial review over the argumentation of decisions made by public authorities. It has been established that judicial review in the field of administrative justice involves examining the relevance, completeness, and logical consistency of the motives underlying the decisions of public authorities to ensure their compliance with the principle of the rule of law. Based on an analysis of the provisions of the Code of Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine, the case law of the Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the courts of specific foreign countries (such as Canada, the United States, and Great Britain), the study identifies doctrinal standards for the argumentation of decisions made by public authorities. It has been proved that these standards encompass logic, coherence, the connection of motives with legal norms, consideration of relevant facts, the prohibition of arbitrariness, and adherence to the principle of proportionality. The concept of reasonable, proportionate, and evidence-based argumentation by public authorities is proposed as a theoretical and law-application model for improving administrative justice in Ukraine. For the first time, a systemic approach to judicial review of the argumentation of decisions made by public authorities is formulated as a distinct institute of administrative justice that integrates national and international standards of good governance. The practical significance of the obtained results is emphasized, which lies in the possibility of using the relevant criteria when assessing the reasonableness of decisions made by a public authority in judicial and public administration practice, as well as when developing methodological guidelines for civil servants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".