This paper examines legal proceedings in the court of first instance for civil cases in Ukraine. Using ethnographic methodology, it demonstrates that a large part of a court judgement is predetermined by the institutional infrastructure and by practices established more widely in Ukrainian society. By observing case hearings and interviewing litigants and judges, the paper reveals that an unbridgeable gap separates a legal case, as constructed through documentary files, from the reality of life. This affects the very meaning of ‘evidence’ and the way that judicial decisions are made. The paper also illustrates the benefits of viewing a lower-level civil courtroom as a microcosm of a society, demonstrating that it provides rich insights into different layers of that society.
AkimovaISchwodiauerG (2005) The effect of trust in courts on the performance of Ukrainian SMEs. In: HohmannHHWelterF (eds) Trust and Entrepreneurship: A West–East perspective. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 156–175.
2.
Allina-PisanoJ (2007) The Post-Soviet Potemkin Village. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AslundA (2005) The economic policy of Ukraine after the orange revolution. Eurasian Geography and Economics46(5): 327–353.
4.
AslundA (2009) How Ukraine Became a Market Economy and Democracy. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.
5.
BairdVA (2010) The effect of national and local funding on judicial performance: Perceptions of Russia’s lawyers. Law and Society Review44(2): 331–364.
BurbankJ (2004) Russian Peasants Go to Court. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
8.
ChaseOG (2005) Law, Culture, and Ritual: Disputing Systems in Cross-Cultural Context. New York, NY: New York University Press.
9.
Clarke LB (1999) Mission Improbable: Using Fantasy Documents to Tame Disaster. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
ClarkTS (2010) The Limits of Judicial Independence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
CoserL (1964) The Functions of Social Conflict. New York, NY: The Free Press.
12.
CowanDHitchingsE (2007) Pretty boring stuff: District judges and housing possession proceedings. Social and Legal Studies16(3): 363–382.
13.
Dery D (1998) “Papereality” and learning in bureaucratic organizations. Administration & Society 29: 677–689.
14.
DieterS (1994) Legislation as both a world order and legal order. In: LaiouADieterS (eds) Law and Society in Byzantium: Ninth–Twelfth Centuries. Washington, DC: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–27.
15.
EngelDMSteeleEH (1976) Civil cases and society: Process and order in the civil justice system. Law & Social Inquiry4(2): 295–346.
16.
EwickPSilbeyS (1998) The Common Place of Law: Stories from Everyday Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
GennH (2008) Paths to Justice. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
18.
GreenhouseCJYngvessonBEngelD (1994) Law and Community in Three American Towns. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
19.
GrahamC (2003) Ordering Law: the Architectural and Social History of the English Court to 1914. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
20.
HeimerAC (2006) Conceiving children: How documents support case versus biographical analyses. In: RilesA (ed.) Documents: Artefacts of Modern Knowledge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
21.
KubicekP (2005) The European union and democratization in Ukraine. Communist and Post-Communist Studies38(2): 269–292.
22.
KurkchiyanM (2010) Comparing legal cultures: three models of court for small civil cases. Journal of Comparative Law5(2): 169–194.
23.
KurkchiyanM (2011) Report on the cases observed in the English, Polish, Bulgarian and Ukrainian Civil Courts of first instance, submitted to the Research Council of Norway. Expected to be posted on the Council’s website in 2014.
24.
LangerSScourfieldJFinchamB (2008) Documenting the quick and the death: A study of suicide case files in the Coroner’s office. Sociological Review56(2): 293–308.
25.
LatourB (2010) The Making of Law: An Ethnography of the Conseil D’Etat. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
26.
MaleshinD (2007) The Russian style of civil procedure. Emory International Law Review21(2): 543–562.
27.
Moorhead and Cowan (2007) Judgecraft: An introduction. Social & Legal Studies16(3): 316–319.
28.
MerryS (1990) Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness Among Working Class Americans. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
MeyerKEPengMW (2005) Probing theoretically into central and eastern Europe. Journal of International Business Studies36: 600–621.
30.
MulcahyL (2007) Architects of justice: The politics of courtroom design. Social and Legal Studies16(3): 383–403.
31.
MulcahyL (2011) Legal Architecture: Justice, Due Process and the Place of Law. Oxford, UK: Routledge.
32.
NeillBBrookeH (2008) The Rule of Law in Ukraine. Lord Slynn of Hadley European Law Foundation for the EU–Ukraine Business Council. Available at: http://www.euubc.com/docs/Rule_Of_Law_ENG.pdf (accessed 20 January 2011).
33.
PerryE (2006) Cases Illustrative of Oriental Life Decided in H. M. Supreme Court: The Application of English Law to India. India: Asian Educational Services.
34.
ResnikJCurtisD (2011) Representing Justice: Invention, Controversy, and Rights in City-States and Democratic Courtrooms. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
35.
RobertsSPalmerM (2005) Dispute Processes: ADR and the Primary Forms of Decision-Making. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
SearcyMDuckSBlanchP (2009) Nonverbal communication in the courtroom and the ‘appearance’ of justice. In: RiggioREFeldmanRS (eds) Applications of Non-Verbal Communications. New Jersey, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
37.
SolomonP (2010) The Yanukovich Judicial reform: Design and First Impressions. Report prepared for the Canada Ukraine Judicial Cooperation Program.
38.
TiffinA (2006) Ukraine: The Cost of Weak Institutions. Washington, DC: IMF Working Paper WR/06/167.
39.
VynoslavskaOMcKinneyJAMooreCWLongeneckerJG (2005) Transition ethics: A comparison of Ukrainian and United States business professionals. Journal of Business Ethics61: 296.
40.
WalshamG (1997) Information systems and qualitative research. In: LeeASLiebenauJDeGrossJI (eds) Actor-Network Theory and IS Research: Current Status and Future Prospects. London, UK: Chapman & Hall.
41.
WooMWangY (2005) Civil justice in China: An empirical study of courts in three provinces. American Journal of Comparative Law53(4): 911–940.
