Administrative liability, as a type of legal coercion, is important for maintaining law and order, protection of an individual, protection of human rights and freedoms, performance of tasks and functions of the state. The description of administrative liability, given in the article, is connected with its inherent features and peculiarities of an administrative offense (misdemeanour). The most significant attention is paid to the issue, connected with public danger of an illegal act, taking into account the conceptual changes in criminal legislation, and, thus, criminal liability and as a consequence of administrative liability. The concept of reforming the Criminal Legislation provides for the preparation in addition to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the Code (Law) on Criminal Offenses (misdemeanours) and the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. Taking into account the emergence of the phenomenon of "criminal misdemeanours" in the legislation of Ukraine, for committing of which there is criminal liability before the court (the judge), the author raises the question of defining such criminal offense as a socially dangerous act, but of less public danger than a crime, and all other misdemeanours (administrative) should be considered harmful, but not socially dangerous. Cases of such misdemeanours should be considered during administrative proceedings, according to the (procedural) rules defined in the Code on Administrative Offenses. Using the experience of legal regulation of European countries, we thus implement our legislation to the European one, but taking into account our national traditions and maintaining the fundamental principles of criminal law and maintaining such principles regarding administrative liability. So, criminal liability arises only in accordance with the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Code (Law) on Criminal Offenses (misdemeanours) as socially dangerous acts, and administrative liability arises in accordance with the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (misdemeanours) that ...
In order to optimize the conditions for ensuring the administrative and legal development of regions in Ukraine on the basis of strengthening and enhancing their administrative and legal potential, the article analyzes and systematizes approaches to the peculiarities of the implementation of the mechanism of state influence on local governments, aimed at increasing the efficiency of the execution of the powers of local governments, which will allow to take into account the functional links between the components of management, ensure the rational use of available resources, rationalize work and minimize risks, as well as increase the efficiency of local government bodies.
The main directions of reforming the system of administrative management in Ukraine are investigated in the article. Modern systems of administrative management are analyzed and it is suggested to concentrate on five main directions of improvement of the system of administrative management: 1. Privatization and decentralization of public administration; 2. Reduction of excessive state regulation; 3. Improving the quality of public services; 4. Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government; 5. Increasing the information openness of the authorities.
The relevance of the article is due to the fact that not enough attention is being paid in the scientific and educational legal literature to the problems of administrative conviction, and therefore the questions about its main features and definition remain debatable. The purpose of the article is to find out the essence of administrative conviction. Systematic and historical approaches, methods of analysis and synthesis, comparative method, method of expert assessments were used in the process of realization of this goal. Informational basis of the article are literary sources, Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, the law "On the National Police". An analysis of the first in the post-Soviet legal literature serious attempt to find out about the features of administrative persuasion has been made. As part of this analysis: 1) it has been shown that the provisions under which: a) the application of an administrative conviction is a monopoly of public authorities; b) administrative conviction is not linked to individual influence; 2) the contradiction between the Ukrainian legislation and the allegations in the legal literature has been pointed out, and it has been confirmed that the factual basis of the administrative conviction is always absent and that its application does not have a regulatory framework; 3) it has been suggested that under the current conditions the primacy of persuasion over coercion should be regarded not as a feature of administrative persuasion but as a desirable tendency for the development of this institution; 4) it has been considered as appropriate to include in the range of features of administrative conviction that: a) it is a universal method of public administration; b) subordination of its influence is voluntary; c) it is a means of preventing and averting an offense Criticism of the view that administrative conviction includes encouragement has been supported. It has been concluded that the administrative conviction is a universal method of public administration, which ...
The article considers the concept, features and content of administrative activities, the difference between administrative activities and other activities of government, features of administrative activities, regulation of administrative activities.
The article considers the concept, features and content of administrative activities, the difference between administrative activities and other activities of government, features of administrative activities, regulation of administrative activities.
The article researches the features of military administration in administrative legal aspect taking into account the features of public administration. First of all, it relates to the following features: organizational activity which results in administration relations; existence of the subject of public administration who has authoritative powers to exercise public administration in the structure of these relations (to have these relations not only subjects but an object who is influenced by the subject of administration should participate); relations of power between the subject and object of administration when only the state body which is the subject of administration has the power and the objects should fulfill orders of the subject; the state authoritative organizational activity when the laws should be followed and this activity is considered as regulatory based on effective legislation; public administration is exercised only within effective legislation; legal liability for violation of legislation. First, specific feature of military administration is its two levels when there are bodies of military administration and military command. Second, specific feature of military administration is its crisis orientation when under ordinary circumstances objects of such administration are servicemen, military base, military formations which means that it has a clear regulatory and internal organizational character. At the same time, during martial law, emergency or other situation provided for by legislation the sphere of military administration can increase and include objects out of the Armed Forces. Third, military administration is represented by administration exercised by a single person. Fourth, organizational unity has a significant meaning for military administration. Fifth, military discipline ensures a high level of procedural administrative relations, but majority of procedural norms are isolated and not represented by proceedings.
The article is devoted to the study of the legal nature of procedural law as a general theoretical category and its purpose in regulating procedural activity, to determine the main task that should be faced with administrative justice and to determine its effectiveness, as well as to formulate some proposals for ensuring the effectiveness of administrative justice. It is proved that the basis of the appointment of administrative justice lies in the theoretical foundations of procedural law. Appointment of administrative justice is to protect the rights, freedoms and interests of persons in the field of public relations from violations by the authorities (state authorities, local self-government bodies, their officials and officials, other entities in the exercise of their power. management functions based on legislation, including the exercise of delegated powers). The rights, freedoms and interests that protect administrative courts can be varied (from constitutional to civil). But the largest share among them belongs to the subjective public law. Subjective public rights are usually manifested not only in the relationship of "public entity - public administration", but also in the relationship "public administration - private entity", as well as in the relations that arise between the two legal entities of public law. For example, public administration has the right to demand from a private person tax. The practical importance of the protection of subjective public rights is manifested in the possibility of securing and enforcing them by appealing to the court. According to Part 2 of Art. 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine, everyone is guaranteed the right to challenge in court the decisions, actions or omissions of state authorities, local self-government bodies, officials and officials. However, a necessary prerequisite to appeal to an administrative court is the fact that the subject of public administration violates its own, that is, the subjective public rights of an individual.
Ukrainian legislation on administrative procedure has not been systematized until now. One can find legal norms of administrative procedural nature in a various laws and by-laws (that is even worse). Only some of these pieces of legislation implement European standards of good administration while the others practically lack it.The article deals with the three principal systematization`s models of legislation on administrative procedure: adopting of a new general law (code), however sector specific laws in certain areas (for example, taxation) will have higher legal force; adopting of a new general law (code) with the priority over sector specific laws in certain areas; refusal to adopt a general law (code) and adopting of new or amending of sector specific laws in certain areas that are supposed to implement general principles of administrative procedure in every piece of legislation.The author analyzes advantages and possible failures of above mentioned systematization`s models of legislation on administrative procedure and comes to the conclusion that the first one is more realistic and thus preferable for implementation into Ukrainian legislation. Such the way is also based on the latest developments of administrative procedure`s doctrine and on numeral soft law documents that were adopted by the Council of Europe and the European Union during last decade. For example, European Parliament resolution of 15 January 2013 with recommendations to the Commission on a Law of Administrative Procedure of the European Union foresee that future regulation should include a universal set of principles and should lay down a procedure applicable as a de minimis rule where no lex specialis exists. Besides, the guarantees afforded to persons in sectoral instruments must never provide less protection than those provided for in the general regulation.At the same time, any of three proposed systematization`s models must reinforce requirements of a right to good administration directly connected to the standards on administrative procedure.Up to the author`s position, the worst scenario for Ukrainian legislation on administrative procedure is saving of status quo, when sector specific laws and by-laws in certain areas foresee some contemporary standards of good administration while normative acts in the other areas do not foresee it or implement only some elements of above mentioned standards. Such a situation has nothing in common with the systematization of legislation of administrative procedure and hopefully will be changed. ; Адміністративно-процедурне законодавство в Україні до цього часу залишається несистематизованим. Адміністративно-процедурні норми містяться у величезній кількості як законодавчих, так і підзаконних нормативно-правових актів, у яких стандарти доброго (належного) адміністрування закріплені далеко не однаковою мірою, а подекуди – практично відсутні.Розглянуто три основні моделі систематизації адміністративно-процедурного законодавства: ухвалення загального закону (кодексу) про адміністративну процедуру зі збереженням пріоритету спеціального законодавства; ухвалення такого ж загального закону (кодексу), але з вищою юридичною силою стосовно відповідного спеціального законодавства; продовження ухвалення спеціального адміністративно-процедурного законодавства для певних сфер суспільних відносин або ж для окремих органів публічної адміністрації, однак із запровадженням загальних принципів адміністративної процедури в юридичні норми кожного спеціального законодавчого акта. Проаналізовано переваги та недоліки кожної із запропонованих моделей систематизації та виявлено переваги використання в Україні першого із названих варіантів.
Стаття присвячена характеристиці адміністративної відповідальності як виду юридичного примусу, що має важливе значення для підтримання правопорядку, захисту особи, охорони прав і свобод людини, виконання завдань і функцій держави. Наведена у статті характеристика адміністративної відповідальності пов'язана з притаманними їй ознаками та особливостями адміністративного правопорушення (проступку). Найбільша увага приділена питанню, пов'язаному із суспільною небезпечністю протиправного діяння, з огляду на концептуальні зміни щодо кримінальної та адміністративної відповідальності. Зважаючи на появу у законодавстві «кримінального проступку», за який настає кримінальна відповідальність у спрощеному процесуальному порядку перед судом (суддею), у статті порушено проблему визначення злочинного проступку суспільно небезпечним діянням, але меншої суспільної небезпеки, а всі інші проступки (адміністративні) пропонується визнавати шкідливими, але не суспільно небезпечними, справи про які розглядаються в адміністративному порядку за визначеними в Кодексі про правопорушення правилами (процесуальними). Використовуючи досвід правового регулювання країн Європи, ми таким чином імплементуємо у своє законодавство європейські підходи, але з урахуванням національних традицій і підтриманням фундаментальних засад кримінальної відповідальності та збереженням таких засад щодо адміністративної відповідальності. ; Статья посвящена характеристике административной ответственности как вида юридического принуждения, имеющего важное значение для поддержания правопорядка, защиты лица, охраны прав и свобод человека, выполнения задач и функций государства. Приведенная в статье характеристика административной ответственности связана с присущими ей признаками и особенностями административного правонарушения (проступка). Наиболее значительное внимание уделено вопросу, связанному с общественной опасностью противоправного деяния, учитывая концептуальные изменения в уголовной и административной ответственности. Используя опыт правового регулирования стран Европы, мы таким образом имплементируем в свое законодательство европейские подходы, но с учетом национальных традиций и поддержания фундаментальных основ уголовного права и сохранением таких основ по административной ответственности. ; Administrative liability, as a type of legal coercion, is important for maintaining law and order, protection of an individual, protection of human rights and freedoms, performance of tasks and functions of the state. The description of administrative liability, given in the article, is connected with its inherent features and peculiarities of an administrative offense (misdemeanour). The most significant attention is paid to the issue, connected with public danger of an illegal act, taking into account the conceptual changes in criminal legislation, and, thus, criminal liability and as a consequence of administrative liability. The concept of reforming the Criminal Legislation provides for the preparation in addition to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the Code (Law) on Criminal Offenses (misdemeanours) and the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. Taking into account the emergence of the phenomenon of "criminal misdemeanours" in the legislation of Ukraine, for committing of which there is criminal liability before the court (the judge), the author raises the question of defining such criminal offense as a socially dangerous act, but of less public danger than a crime, and all other misdemeanours (administrative) should be considered harmful, but not socially dangerous. Cases of such misdemeanours should be considered during administrative proceedings, according to the (procedural) rules defined in the Code on Administrative Offenses.Using the experience of legal regulation of European countries, we thus implement our legislation to the European one, but taking into account our national traditions and maintaining the fundamental principles of criminal law and maintaining such principles regarding administrative liability. So, criminal liability arises only in accordance with the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Code (Law) on Criminal Offenses (misdemeanours) as socially dangerous acts, and administrative liability arises in accordance with the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (misdemeanours) that are not socially dangerous.
Стаття присвячена характеристиці адміністративної відповідальності як виду юридичного примусу, що має важливе значення для підтримання правопорядку, захисту особи, охорони прав і свобод людини, виконання завдань і функцій держави. Наведена у статті характеристика адміністративної відповідальності пов'язана з притаманними їй ознаками та особливостями адміністративного правопорушення (проступку). Найбільша увага приділена питанню, пов'язаному із суспільною небезпечністю протиправного діяння, з огляду на концептуальні зміни щодо кримінальної та адміністративної відповідальності. Зважаючи на появу у законодавстві «кримінального проступку», за який настає кримінальна відповідальність у спрощеному процесуальному порядку перед судом (суддею), у статті порушено проблему визначення злочинного проступку суспільно небезпечним діянням, але меншої суспільної небезпеки, а всі інші проступки (адміністративні) пропонується визнавати шкідливими, але не суспільно небезпечними, справи про які розглядаються в адміністративному порядку за визначеними в Кодексі про правопорушення правилами (процесуальними). Використовуючи досвід правового регулювання країн Європи, ми таким чином імплементуємо у своє законодавство європейські підходи, але з урахуванням національних традицій і підтриманням фундаментальних засад кримінальної відповідальності та збереженням таких засад щодо адміністративної відповідальності. ; Статья посвящена характеристике административной ответственности как вида юридического принуждения, имеющего важное значение для поддержания правопорядка, защиты лица, охраны прав и свобод человека, выполнения задач и функций государства. Приведенная в статье характеристика административной ответственности связана с присущими ей признаками и особенностями административного правонарушения (проступка). Наиболее значительное внимание уделено вопросу, связанному с общественной опасностью противоправного деяния, учитывая концептуальные изменения в уголовной и административной ответственности. Используя опыт правового регулирования стран Европы, мы таким образом имплементируем в свое законодательство европейские подходы, но с учетом национальных традиций и поддержания фундаментальных основ уголовного права и сохранением таких основ по административной ответственности. ; Administrative liability, as a type of legal coercion, is important for maintaining law and order, protection of an individual, protection of human rights and freedoms, performance of tasks and functions of the state. The description of administrative liability, given in the article, is connected with its inherent features and peculiarities of an administrative offense (misdemeanour). The most significant attention is paid to the issue, connected with public danger of an illegal act, taking into account the conceptual changes in criminal legislation, and, thus, criminal liability and as a consequence of administrative liability. The concept of reforming the Criminal Legislation provides for the preparation in addition to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the Code (Law) on Criminal Offenses (misdemeanours) and the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. Taking into account the emergence of the phenomenon of "criminal misdemeanours" in the legislation of Ukraine, for committing of which there is criminal liability before the court (the judge), the author raises the question of defining such criminal offense as a socially dangerous act, but of less public danger than a crime, and all other misdemeanours (administrative) should be considered harmful, but not socially dangerous. Cases of such misdemeanours should be considered during administrative proceedings, according to the (procedural) rules defined in the Code on Administrative Offenses.Using the experience of legal regulation of European countries, we thus implement our legislation to the European one, but taking into account our national traditions and maintaining the fundamental principles of criminal law and maintaining such principles regarding administrative liability. So, criminal liability arises only in accordance with the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Code (Law) on Criminal Offenses (misdemeanours) as socially dangerous acts, and administrative liability arises in accordance with the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (misdemeanours) that are not socially dangerous.
Стаття присвячена характеристиці адміністративної відповідальності як виду юридичного примусу, що має важливе значення для підтримання правопорядку, захисту особи, охорони прав і свобод людини, виконання завдань і функцій держави. Наведена у статті характеристика адміністративної відповідальності пов'язана з притаманними їй ознаками та особливостями адміністративного правопорушення (проступку). Найбільша увага приділена питанню, пов'язаному із суспільною небезпечністю протиправного діяння, з огляду на концептуальні зміни щодо кримінальної та адміністративної відповідальності. Зважаючи на появу у законодавстві «кримінального проступку», за який настає кримінальна відповідальність у спрощеному процесуальному порядку перед судом (суддею), у статті порушено проблему визначення злочинного проступку суспільно небезпечним діянням, але меншої суспільної небезпеки, а всі інші проступки (адміністративні) пропонується визнавати шкідливими, але не суспільно небезпечними, справи про які розглядаються в адміністративному порядку за визначеними в Кодексі про правопорушення правилами (процесуальними). Використовуючи досвід правового регулювання країн Європи, ми таким чином імплементуємо у своє законодавство європейські підходи, але з урахуванням національних традицій і підтриманням фундаментальних засад кримінальної відповідальності та збереженням таких засад щодо адміністративної відповідальності. ; Статья посвящена характеристике административной ответственности как вида юридического принуждения, имеющего важное значение для поддержания правопорядка, защиты лица, охраны прав и свобод человека, выполнения задач и функций государства. Приведенная в статье характеристика административной ответственности связана с присущими ей признаками и особенностями административного правонарушения (проступка). Наиболее значительное внимание уделено вопросу, связанному с общественной опасностью противоправного деяния, учитывая концептуальные изменения в уголовной и административной ответственности. Используя опыт правового регулирования стран Европы, мы таким образом имплементируем в свое законодательство европейские подходы, но с учетом национальных традиций и поддержания фундаментальных основ уголовного права и сохранением таких основ по административной ответственности. ; Administrative liability, as a type of legal coercion, is important for maintaining law and order, protection of an individual, protection of human rights and freedoms, performance of tasks and functions of the state. The description of administrative liability, given in the article, is connected with its inherent features and peculiarities of an administrative offense (misdemeanour). The most significant attention is paid to the issue, connected with public danger of an illegal act, taking into account the conceptual changes in criminal legislation, and, thus, criminal liability and as a consequence of administrative liability. The concept of reforming the Criminal Legislation provides for the preparation in addition to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the Code (Law) on Criminal Offenses (misdemeanours) and the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses. Taking into account the emergence of the phenomenon of "criminal misdemeanours" in the legislation of Ukraine, for committing of which there is criminal liability before the court (the judge), the author raises the question of defining such criminal offense as a socially dangerous act, but of less public danger than a crime, and all other misdemeanours (administrative) should be considered harmful, but not socially dangerous. Cases of such misdemeanours should be considered during administrative proceedings, according to the (procedural) rules defined in the Code on Administrative Offenses.Using the experience of legal regulation of European countries, we thus implement our legislation to the European one, but taking into account our national traditions and maintaining the fundamental principles of criminal law and maintaining such principles regarding administrative liability. So, criminal liability arises only in accordance with the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Code (Law) on Criminal Offenses (misdemeanours) as socially dangerous acts, and administrative liability arises in accordance with the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses (misdemeanours) that are not socially dangerous.
Modern directions of development of administrative law are examined in the article. Priority directions of development of home administrative law are outlined. The separate aspects of transformation of administrative law are determined. It is marked on the native updating of all system of administrative law with taking into account public interests and orientation first of all on providing of rights and freedoms of man and citizen. Changes that took place for the last decades in our country influenced all spheres of vital functions of both the state and society on the whole, not leaving legal science aside, the consequences of influence on that strike the volume and scales. For years independence of Ukraine theoretical and methodological bases of science of administrative law were radically revised taking into account political, social, economic and legal nature of the Ukrainian state, objective conformities to law and tendencies of her historical development. The new doctrine of administrative law directly influences on the process of reformation of administrative law as to the field of law, that is based on confession qualitatively of new role of the state in mutual relations with citizens, ideology is not domination, but service to them. Taking into account resulted estimation of development of science of administrative law on the modern stage determines a necessity and actuality.
The article is devoted to the study of evidence in administrative proceedings. The article thoroughly examines the doctrinal and legislative approaches to understanding the concept of evidence. Scientists have justified the identification of evidence with information used in administrative proceedings to establish the presence or absence of certain facts. The author determines the evidence based on the researched approaches of scientists and the current administrative procedural legislation. The importance of defining a particular process of proof as a complex multi-activity in administrative proceedings is examined. It is concluded that the process of proving in administrative proceedings consists in collecting by the participants of the process any data collected legally, guided by which the court should establish the presence or absence of circumstances and facts in the case, which will become the basis for the court to make a lawful, justified and justified decision. on the case. In addition, the process of proof is interpreted as the mental activity of all participants in the proceedings, which aims to transform the established facts into the status of evidence in the case. The author establishes the existence of stages of the process of evidence in administrative proceedings, namely the collection and presentation of evidence, the examination of evidence, the process of proof at the stage of trial and evaluation of evidence. The author explores that the starting point of proof is the collection and presentation of evidence. The main stage of evidence - the study of evidence - is characterized in the context of its theoretical and normative substantiation. The article identifies ways of examining the evidence and states that it is implemented in a certain sequence. The author identifies as the next logical step the sequential transition from one fact to another with the help of the presented evidence, which is one or another form of presentation of established facts.
The article attempts to examine the problems of qualification of administrative offences related to corruption, in particular violation of restrictions on combining and concurrently governing the imposition of administrative sanctions under article 172-4 СAO. Differentiated legal approaches to the definition of alignment and a second position, control and composition of the Board, Executive or Supervisory bodies, the Supervisory Council of an enterprise or organization. In particular, this article focuses attention on the conflict of laws aspects of legislation, regulatory requirements concerning the incompatibility of functions of state authorities and local self-government and membership of the Board, revealed a problem of lack of harmonization of the list of certain types of permitted activities for certain categories of officials, which creates ambiguity in law enforcement. Given the number of decisions on Affairs about attraction to administrative responsibility under part 2 of article 172-4 of the CAO, that is, the membership of the Board, other Executive or controlling bodies, or Supervisory Council of an enterprise or organization that has the objective of making a profit, based on the analysis which the author identified signs that may indicate the presence or absence of corpus delicti under article 172-4CAO. Also the article presents the categorization of the most common mistakes in law enforcement practice in the consideration of administrative cases on violation of restrictions on combining and overlapping with other activities.
