Judicial practice and legal positions of the Supreme Court as sources of law in conditions of legal uncertainty

In the current conditions of the transformation of the legal system of Ukraine, the problem of recognizing judicial practice and legal positions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine as a source of law is becoming particularly relevant. Despite the fact that, according to formal signs, judicial practice is not included in the list of official sources of law, it performs an essential regulatory function. The article carries out a comprehensive analysis of doctrinal and normative approaches to understanding judicial practice, determines its actual meaning in the context of law enforcement and interpretation of legal norms. Particular attention is paid to the legal positions of the Supreme Court, which are formed during the consideration of specific cases and are of an interdisciplinary nature. The study proves that legal positions not only specify the general provisions of the law, but also contribute to the unification of law enforcement, creating guidelines for lower courts. Examples from judicial practice are considered, in particular, regarding the integrated approach in disputes about illegal dismissal, where the Supreme Court combines the norms of labor and civil law. The regulatory role of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which, according to the Constitution of Ukraine and procedural codes, are recognized as a source of law, is also analyzed. The article points out the existing gaps in the regulatory regulation of the status of legal positions: the absence of a direct indication of their binding nature in the legislation is combined with the practice of their actual application by the courts. This creates legal uncertainty, which requires both doctrinal understanding and improvement of procedural mechanisms for taking into account the positions of the Supreme Court. Thus, the author justifies the need to recognize judicial practice (in particular, legal positions) as an auxiliary or even independent source of law in the context of constant legal changes and reforms. Special attention is paid to the analysis of innovations in procedural legislation, in particular, the obligation of cassation courts to transfer cases to the Grand Chamber in case of deviation from the legal position, which indicates the growth of the role of the Supreme Court as an institutional guarantor of the unity of judicial practice. As a result, the conclusion is formulated about the need for legislative understanding of the status of case law in the system of sources of law, despite their obvious and recognized role in the unification of law enforcement, specification of legislation and guidelines for lower courts, the direct constitutional consolidation of the binding nature of court decisions creates a debate on whether case law acquires the character of a source of law.