З’ясовано роль юридичної техніки у сфері юридичної діяльності. Наголошено, що від реалізації суб’єктом правотворчості чи правозастосування (або суб’єктом юридичного тлумачення) вимог юридичної техніки значною мірою залежить ефективність законодавства в цілому, його правильне розуміння та використання суб’єктами правозастосування тощо. Наведено приклади норм права, сформульованих із порушенням правил юридичної техніки, зокрема статті Кримінального кодексу України; рішень судів України, текст яких частково не відповідає правилам юридичної техніки.
Статья посвящена выяснению роли юридической техники в сфере юридической деятельности. Отмечается, что от реализации субъектом правотворчества или правоприменения (или субъекта юридического толкования) требований юридической техники в значительной мере зависит эффективность законодательства в целом, его правильное понимание и использование субъектами правоприменения. Приводятся примеры норм права, которые сформулированы с нарушением правил юридической техники, в частности
статьи Криминального кодекса Украины. Приводятся примеры решений судов Украины, текст которых частично не отвечает правилам юридической техники.
The article deals with finding out the role of legal technique within the sphere of legal activities. It is stressed that designing of a qualitative and efficient written legal act (the question is first of all a normative and legal act and an act of application of legal standards) is only possible under condition of high level of the subject of lawmaking activities and legal application, who are demanded not only use legal set of instruments, but also possess intellectual ability, experience,
knowledge and high level of legal culture.
Entire effectuality of legislation and its correct understanding and the use by the subjects of legal application depends a lot upon the realization by the subject of lawmaking activities and legal application (or the subject of legal interpretation) the demands of legal technique. Attention is paid to the fact that a great number of breves of acting normative and legal acts in Ukraine are quite inefficient from the point of view of positions of norms making technique.
There are given examples of legal norms that are formulated with breach of rules of legal technique, namely articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. There are also provided examples of
decisions of Courts of Ukraine, the texts of which partially do not correspond the rules of the legal technique.
It is indicated that it is impossible to agree with the thesis about separation as a type of legal technique the technique of systematization of normative and legal acts because
1) one of forms of systematization of normative and legal acts is codifying, with which deal the subjects of law making. The result of the codifying is a new unitary normative and legal act. That is why in this case while making this act are realized demands to law making technique first of all. Similar situation is concerning such form of legislation systematization as consolidation;
2) as to the other form of systematization of normative and legal acts, namely incorporation (quite often one more form is called calculation), it is solely technical work and the only thing that distinguishes it for example from systematization of literature, performing of some register is the object, which in this case are normative and legal acts. That is why it has only intermediary
attitude.
It is concluded that adherence of rules of the legal technique (first of all the technique of law making and legal application) within a law abiding state is not only an important demand but the necessity. Under such a condition only adopted by the subjects of lawmaking activities normative and legal acts will be efficiently realized, also by the subjects of application of legal norms.
Inefficiency of legislation, legal acts, legal nihilisms expansion are the consequences of inobservance of legal technique.
