Suchergebnisse

The aim of the article is to consider the issues of public administration of the election process in situation of pandemic, the peculiarities of the implementation of election legislation and the problems of elections in Ukraine and abroad with the introduction of quarantine restrictions. The subject of the study is the peculiarities of holding elections in situation of pandemic. Research methodology. The set of general scientific and special methods is used to achieve the objectives of the research: systemic, dialectical, systemic and structural, legal and dogmatic, comparative, predictive methods. Research results. It has been noted that in many countries the question of postponing the dates of elections and referendums, which had been set in advance, was raised because of the Covid-19 pandemic. Practical meaning. The analysis of the experience of foreign countries in postponing the voting dates of elections and referendums has shown that such measures had been taken because of the introduction of the state of emergency as the special legal regime for public authorities and administration throughout the State or in individual administrative-territorial units, which entailed substantial restriction of citizens' rights and freedoms in the area of electoral matters. Value / originality. The need for further research of alternative voting methods, such as direct visits to the polling station, such as remote voting, voting by mail, early voting, mobile voting, electronic voting, voting by proxy and others has been substantiated.

The purpose of the article is to examine the jury court as a body of public administration.
The legal status of the jury trial in the system of public administration in Ukraine is considered. An analysis of the possibility of interpreting the jury court as a public organization was carried out and it was substantiated that the jury does not fall under the status of a public organization. It has been established that the administration of justice in Ukraine is the function of only state bodies to which the jury belongs, as it is part of the judicial system of Ukraine.
The jury court as a body of state judicial power was considered. It has been proven that the jury has a number of specific features that distinguish state bodies from non-state bodies, in particular, it has been established that the difference between the jury and other bodies of state power is that it does not have a certain permanent composition, and the jury is formed once on the basis of a complex selection mechanism for consideration of a specific case.
It is justified that the jury court is an institution that controls the distribution of power prerogatives between the branches of power: executive, legislative and judicial. The jury, as the most democratic judicial body, in this case performs a control function, preventing the interference of legislative and executive bodies in the administration of justice, which is not provided for by law.
The authors conclude that, in carrying out its activities, the jury closely interacts with other bodies of state power: with law enforcement agencies and the prosecutor's office as bodies that perform the function of the prosecutor's office, with local self-government bodies as bodies that provide voter lists, with other bodies of judicial power , which control the activity of the jury court.
It was determined that the jury acts in accordance with the principles of the organization and operation of the state apparatus, which include: legality and constitutionality, the principle of professionalism (regarding professional lawyers) and ethics of civil servants, the optimal structure and functioning of the state body, its effectiveness. These and other principles are reflected in the legal acts regulating the activity of the jury court.