ПОРІВНЯЛЬНО-ПРАВОВА ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА ПОРЯДКУ ВИКОНАННЯ РІШЕНЬ КОНСТИТУЦІЙНИХ СУДІВ КРАЇН-ЧЛЕНІВ КОНФЕРЕНЦІЇ ЄВРОПЕЙСЬКИХ КОНСТИТУЦІЙНИХ СУДІВ

The article is devoted to the study of general provisions of the procedure for execution of decisions by the constitutional courts of Ukraine, the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Moldova in comparative law. The choice of the countries-objects of research is conditioned by the fact that the above-mentioned constitutional courts together with the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (hereinafter - the CCU) in 2000 became members of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts. The study analyzed the Constitutions and laws governing the constitutional courts of Ukraine, Azerbaijan, the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Moldova in comparative law in the context of studying the general provisions of the enforcement of constitutional courts. It is concluded that despite the different names of acts of constitutional courts, they can be partially reduced by analogy to the Ukrainian decisions of the CCU and the conclusion of the CCU, considering certain features of the legislation of the above countries. However, it is not expedient to search for the equivalent of the CCU's conclusion among the legislation of the above-mentioned countries, as each of them has different methods of regulating the division of powers and the direction of legal regulation of each act. The author concludes that the Ukrainian decisions and conclusions of the CCU are not absolute equivalents of decisions, resolutions and conclusions of the constitutional courts of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Moldova functional among them. At the same time, it was established that the legislators of the Republic of Albania, the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Moldova, in contrast to the Ukrainian one, are more regulated in the procedure of execution of acts of their constitutional courts