DISPUTE SETTLEMENT WITH PATRICIPATION OF JUDGE AS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY TO RESOLVE ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTES

Abstract

The article examines the institution of dispute resolution with judicial participation as an alternative method for resolving administrative disputes, exploring its characteristics and legal nature. The research establishes that judicial dispute resolution represents a unique procedure that combines elements of court proceedings and mediation processes, creating an innovative format for party reconciliation within the judicial framework. Key features of this institution include voluntary participation, confidentiality, time limitations, informality, and the active role of the judge as a mediator. A comparative analysis was conducted between judicial dispute resolution and mediation procedures, identifying their similarities and differences. The main distinctions were found to be the legal status of the mediator, legislative regulation, and timeframes for implementing these procedures. The study explored the specific application of judicial dispute resolution in administrative proceedings, considering the unique nature of public law relations and the legal status of public authorities.The research identified problematic aspects in the practical implementation of this institution, particularly insufficient procedural regulation and limited discretion of government bodies regarding settlement agreements. The authors substantiated the need to improve the regulatory framework by developing methodological guidelines for conducting judicial dispute resolution procedures and expanding the powers of public authorities in concluding settlement agreements.The study demonstrates that the institution of judicial dispute resolution represents a significant step in developing Ukraine’s alternative administrative dispute resolution system, which will help reduce the burden on the judicial system, increase public trust in justice, and ensure more effective protection of rights in the public law sphere.