IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF DIRECT EFFECT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE IN THE ACTIVITIES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES: PROBLEMS AND WAYS OF IMPROVEMENT

Abstract

Introduction. The provision on the direct effect of constitutional norms establishes a qualitatively different standard of interaction between the individual and the state: constitutional rights and freedoms must not only be proclaimed but also be suitable for direct application (primarily in judicial protection) and serve as a benchmark for assessing the legality of actions taken by public authorities.

Summary of the main research findings. It has been established that the principle of direct effect of the Constitution of Ukraine has a dual functional nature: as a guarantee of direct judicial protection of rights and freedoms and as a mandatory standard of constitutionally conforming activity for public authorities. It is proven that the formal enshrinement of direct effect in Part 3 of Article 8 of the Constitution does not ensure its automatic implementation in administrative practice, which leads to a gap between the normative content of constitutional guarantees and actual law enforcement.

The main forms of distortion of the principle of direct effect are generalized as follows: prioritization of subordinate regulation over the constitutional substance of rights, formalism in the exercise of discretionary powers, insufficient legal certainty of administrative procedures, and institutional weakness of mechanisms for restoring rights after a legal act has been declared unconstitutional. It has been revealed that the judicial component of direct effect is significantly more developed than the administrative one, which reduces its implementation mainly to post factum correction of violations rather than preventive assurance of the constitutionality of managerial decisions.

The necessity of synchronizing legislative, judicial, and administrative levels of implementation of the principle of direct effect is substantiated through strengthening procedural guarantees of discretion, unifying judicial practice regarding the direct application of the Constitution, institutionally establishing the obligation of constitutional reasoning in administrative decisions, and developing mechanisms for the effective enforcement of judicial acts. A conceptual model for enhancing the constitutional capacity of public authorities as a prerequisite for effective protection of human rights is proposed.

Conclusion. The implementation of the principle of direct effect of the Constitution of Ukraine should not be perceived as a merely declarative feature of the Basic Law but as a systemic requirement for the entire architecture of public authority. The effectiveness of this principle depends on the synchronization of three interrelated levels: high-quality legislation that does not create gaps or conflicts with constitutional provisions; consistent judicial control capable of promptly refusing to apply unconstitutional norms; and constitutionally oriented administrative practice that integrates the principles of the rule of law, legal certainty, and prohibition of arbitrariness into everyday governance.

The study demonstrates that in the absence of proper interaction among these levels, the direct effect of the Constitution transforms into a reactive mechanism—an instrument for correcting violations after they occur. Such a model narrows its potential to judicial “correction” and neutralizes its preventive function in the activities of public authorities. The constitutional standard must operate prior to the adoption of an administrative decision, not only after it has been challenged.

Institutional consolidation of constitutional standards in subordinate rule-making, procedures for exercising discretionary powers, and mechanisms for enforcing court decisions is a necessary condition for the real, rather than formal, supremacy of the Constitution. Only under such conditions will the principle of direct effect ensure not episodic judicial protection but the stable functioning of a rule-of-law state in which constitutional norms serve as the primary benchmark of legitimacy for any public decision.

KEY WORDS: direct effect, rule of law, legal certainty, public authority, judicial protection, constitutional complaint.