The relevance of the academic study of the problems of judicial protection of civil rights is conditioned by the ongoing judicial reform in Ukraine, which has identified new priorities in this area, since in 2016, the legislator provided the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court with effective instruments for the protection and restoration of violated or unrecognized rights. The purpose of this study is to systematically examine the organizational and procedural aspects of the Institute for the Judicial Protection of Subjective Civil Rights and the Law of Interest in Ukraine, to determine the content of this institution and its development trends based on the results of the 2016 judicial reform. To achieve this purpose, both methods of doctrinal analysis (systemic, structural, functional, hermeneutic) and tools of empirical research (statistical, method of critical analysis of judicial precedents) were applied. As a result, the author's original vision of the issue of judicial protection of subjective civil rights and interests protected by law has been formulated.

As a result of recent amendments to the procedural legislation of Ukraine, one may observe a tendency in judicial practice to differentiate the standards of proof depending on the type of litigation. Thus, in commercial litigation the so-called standard of “probability of evidence” applies, while in criminal proceedings – “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applies. The purpose of this study was to find the rational justification for the differentiation of the standards of proof applied in civil (commercial) and criminal cases and to explain how the same fact is considered proven for the purposes of civil lawsuit and not proven for the purposes of criminal charge. The study is based on the methodology of Bayesian decision theory. The paper demonstrated how the principles of Bayesian decision theory can be applied to judicial fact-finding. According to Bayesian theory, the standard of proof applied depends on the ratio of the false positive error disutility to false negative error disutility. Since both types of error have the same disutility in a civil litigation, the threshold value of conviction is 50+ percent. In a criminal case, on the other hand, the disutility of false positive error considerably exceeds the disutility of the false negative one, and therefore the threshold value of conviction shall be much higher, amounting to 90 percent. Bayesian decision theory is premised on probabilistic assessments. And since the concept of probability has many meanings, the results of the application of Bayesian theory to judicial fact-finding can be interpreted in a variety of ways. When dealing with statistical evidence, it is crucial to distinguish between subjective and objective probability. Statistics indicate objective probability, while the standard of proof refers to subjective probability. Yet, in some cases, especially when statistical data is the only available evidence, the subjective probability may be roughly equivalent to the objective probability. In such cases, statistics cannot be ignored