Regarding the issue of jurisdiction in cases of recognition of illegal inactivity of guardianship and guardianship bodies regarding their drafting of a protocol on the commission of an admini
Authors: Kysil Lyudmila Evgenivna 
Published: January 2025

The article examines the problems of determining the jurisdiction of cases of recognition of illegal inactivity of guardianship and guardianship bodies, which are required by law to draw up protocols on the commission of an administrative offense, provided for in parts 5 and 6 of Article 184 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses.

The fallacy of the approach is proven, according to which the extension of the jurisdiction of administrative courts to one or another dispute should be carried out only because the defendant in the case is a subject of authority (guardianship and guardianship body), and the subject of the dispute there are his actions/or inactions, which are exclusively individual in nature. After all, the essence (content, nature) of the dispute is a defining feature of the case of administrative jurisdiction.

It is argued that the legal relationship in connection with the inaction of the guardianship body, which according to the law is obliged to draw up a protocol on the non-fulfillment of the decision made by it regarding the methods of participation in the upbringing of the child of the parent who lives separately from the child, arises exclusively from the legal relationship, which are private law regulated by the Family Code of Ukraine (Articles 141, 155, 157, 158), do not belong to public legal relations. It has been proven that legal relations in connection with the inaction of the body of guardianship and guardianship, which, according to the law, is obliged to draw up a protocol on the non-fulfillment of the decision made by it on the procedure for participation in the upbringing of the child, the child of the parent who lives separately from the child, arise exclusively from legal relations that are private law, regulated by the Family Code of Ukraine (Articles 141, 155, 157, 158), do not belong to public legal relations.

The guardianship body does not exercise power and administrative functions in relation to the plaintiff in such cases, but is only a body authorized by the Family Code of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine, the Civil Law to provide relevant conclusions/draw up documents during the consideration of relevant civil (family) cases and cases on administrative offenses in courts of general jurisdiction in the manner of civil proceedings. Article 19 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine defines cases that fall under the jurisdiction of general courts. Such courts consider cases arising from civil, land, labor, family, housing and other legal relations in the order of civil proceedings, except for cases which are considered in the order of other proceedings.

Taking into account the above, it is justified that the dispute with the body of guardianship and guardianship regarding its failure to exercise the powers provided for in Article 255 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses should be considered by a court of general jurisdiction in the manner of civil proceedings. This approach corresponds to the legal position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, set forth in the resolution of July 4, 2018 in case No. 496/4271/16-a, as well as the legal opinion of the Supreme Court of April 29, 2021 (as part of the panel of judges of the Cassation Administrative Court), which is contained in the decision in case No. 640/27480/20.

Key words: judicial protection, children’s rights, administrative jurisdiction, civil jurisdiction, subject of power, power management functions, public-legal disputes, private-law relations, public-legal relations.