Journal article Open Access
The article discusses the application of the institution of conclusions of amicus curiae from the point of view of their influence on the formation of the comprehensiveness and impartiality of judicial decisions in the field of national constitutional review. Various definitions of the conclusions of the “friends of the court” are presented, among which it is determined how these models work in the Supreme Court of America, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the definition of this term by the Venice Commission (Commission for Democracy through Law). The role of the conclusions of the “friends of the court” is revealed in a comparative aspect, taking into account the experience of different models. Thus, the American (diffuse) model of constitutional control, the quasi-constitutional model of control on the example of the European Union and the international experience of using the conclusions of the “friends of the court” through the prism of acts of the Venice Commission are analyzed. The possibility of applying the institution of findings of friends of the court in the framework of mediation between countries was examined using the example of such a function in the arsenal of funds of the Venice Commission. It also analyzes how exactly the friendly passages of the Venice Commission helped to improve the system of constitutionalism in Ukraine. The possibility of applying the findings of friends of the court in the framework of proceedings on constitutional complaints in the national legal system is analyzed. It also examines the experience when the thought of friends of the court was formed not in relation to the case, but as a post-factum reaction to it, thus becoming the amicus curiae for other courts. This experience was conveyed through the example of the Baltic-Black Sea Association of Constitutional Courts. It condemned Russian aggression against Crimea, and which became the standard for other constitutional courts (that is, the conclusion of the judges of the union was the conclusion of amicus curiae in no particular case in their own court, but as a standard for any future cases).