This article lists the content and deals with the criteria for assessing the presence or absence of material damage suffered by the applicant to the European Court of Human Rights, the subject of entrepreneurship, as a new condition for the admissibility of an individual application. The article establishes that the list and content of the criteria for assessing the presence or absence of material damage suffered by the applicant to the European Court of Human Rights are different for individuals and for legal entities – business entities. Moreover, the article initiates a discussion on the list and content of these criteria for the subjects of entrepreneurship – the applicants to the European Court of Human Rights. In the light of the Court’s practice, the author reveals their content as well as legal categories such as ‘substantial harm’, ‘financial harm’, ‘pecuniary damage’, ‘non-pecuniary damage’ incurred by the applicant, the subject of entrepreneurship, and highlights the issues to which objectives may be caused by ‘moral harm’ in case of violation of the rights of the subject of entrepreneurship.

Objective: to identify the standards of the European Court of Human Rights on the introduction of mandatory vaccination of medical personnel from COVID-19 in conditions of pandemic.The analysis has been carried out on the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights as for vaccination matters, which formed the legal position of the Court on its implementation by the State. These decisions were divided into groups according to the conditions in which the European Council launched mandatory vaccination: the situation, which is being ordinary, one (standard vaccination against diseases well known to medical science, where vaccines have been tested and investigated thoroughly). Another one is extraordinary situation within society and state, as well as in the world, for example, COVID-19 pandemic.The standards of the European Court of Human Rights for the introduction of mandatory vaccination of medical personnel against COVID-19 in conditions of pandemic have been identified: these measures must be provided by the State legislation which is to meet quality rule of law criteria; to pursue legitimate goal (protection of the population from COVID-19); to be necessary in democratic society. Mandatory vaccination of healthcare professionals against COVID-19 should be used if the goal of protecting the population from COVID-19 cannot be achieved in other ways. Mandatory vaccination of medical personnel against COVID-19 is not the same as forced vaccination. The medical employee chooses whether to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or not according to his own views, values, no matter how irrational, unreasonable, shortsighted they may be in the opinion of the state and other people. The state does not have the right to use forced vaccination, but may apply the following: a range of measures to clarify, persuade, encourage mandatory vaccination of medical personnel against COVID-19, which may be direct or indirect, but not violent; sanctions for refusal from mandatory vaccination of medical personnel from COVID-19 who have no contraindications (suspension from medical activities, fines, etc.).Conclusions. The data obtained in this way allow us to develop further proposals for improving legal regulation of vaccination in Member States of the Council of Europe and increase the effectiveness of ensuring the rights of medical personnel, reduce tensions within society.

В статті проаналізовано умову прийнятності індивідуальних заяв до Європейського суду з прав людини, що була запроваджена Протоколом №14 до Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод -«суттєва шкода, якої зазнав заявник», а також обставини, що вводять у дію застереження пп. «b» п. 3 ст. 35 Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод, та їх кваліфікаційні ознаки. З'ясовано, що Європейський суд з прав людини, навіть припускаючи, що заявник не зазнав суттєвої шкоди, не може оголосити неприйнятною будь-яку iндивiдуальну заяву, яка порушує питання: застосування права, тлумачення норм Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод, національного права. Встановлено, що повага до прав людини, навіть якщо є припущення, що заявник не зазнав суттєвої шкоди, вимагає оголошення Європейським судом з прав людини прийнятною таку індивідуальну заяву оскільки в ній були порушені питання загального характеру щодо дотримання норм Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод: 1) необхідність уточнити зобов'язання держав згідно з Конвенцією; 2) примусити державу-відповідача вирішити структурну проблему, яка зачіпає інтереси інших осіб, що знаходяться у такому ж становищі, що й заявник. Виділено такі умови, за наявності яких повага до прав людини не вимагає розгляду заяви Європейським судом з прав людини: 1) відповідне національне законодавство та практику його застосування було змінено, а подібні питання вже було вирішено в інших справах, які розглянув Європейський суд з прав людини; 2) відповідний закон було скасовано, а заява мала лише історичний характер; 3) Європейський суд з прав людини або Рада Міністрів вже розглянули це питання як комплексну проблему Ключові слова: індивідуальна заява, умови прийнятності індивідуальної заяви, застереження, суттєва шкода 3. Purpose and tasks of the research. The purpose of the article is to implement a comprehensive analysis of the circumstances introducing Journal «ScienceRise: Juridical Science» №1(7)2019

The aim: To characterize cooperation of public authorities and local governments in the field of health care to identify problems that arise when providing free medical care to citizens of Ukraine through state and municipal health care facilities under conditions of COVID-19. Materials and methods: The methodological basis of the research is the general methods of scientific cognitivism as well as concerning those used in legal science: methods of analysis and synthesis, formal logic, comparative law etc. The norms of the adopted new legislation of Ukraine, as well as the practice of its application are analyzed. Conclusions: The following proposals for amendments and supplements to the legislation of Ukraine are substantiated: lack of clear definition of the role of hospital councils within the legislation of Ukraine; providing health care facilities that have separate buildings and isolation of COVID-19 patients; provision of medical aid to COVID-19 patients by a family doctor; establishment and functional activity of ambulance crews in the newly formed united territorial communities; ect.

The article emphasizes that political parties contribute to the formation and expression of the political will of citizens. Thanks to them, citizens of Ukraine can exercise their right to freely choose and be elected to state and local government bodies. A form of direct democracy, in addition to elections, is a referendum. Attention is focused on the fact that the financing of political parties, pre-election campaigning or referendum campaigning can be the tool that, in the presence of deficiencies in the current legislation regulating social relations that arise when giving or receiving a contribution to support a political party, or when receiving state funding of a statutory activities of a political party, or when providing or receiving financial (material) support for pre election campaigning or referendum campaigning, may be used to suppress the will of voters. Attention is also drawn to such a phenomenon as political corruption. It is established that the fines for violating the rules of political party financing, pre-election campaigning or referendum campaigning are disproportionate to the amount of money that any political party receives and spends during elections. The consequence of this is that the amount of the fine fixed in the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, the Criminal Code of Ukraine, is not a safeguard against violations. The amount of money spent on political advertising and pre-election campaigning and the amount of fines for violating the rules of political financing are disproportionate. It is proposed to amend the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses, applying an approach according to which the fine is 100% of the amount of illegal contributions or support received, but not less than 100 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens. If the reporting procedure is violated, the fine is at least 1,000 tax-free minimum incomes of citizens. The shortcomings of the legislation of Ukraine consist in the fact that the provision of financial (material) support for campaigning or in favor of a political party is equated with the transfer of ownership; for criminal offenses characterized by a greater degree of public danger, fines are lower than for administrative violations. Ways to improve the current legislation of Ukraine are proposed, including, in Art. 159 1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is proposed to provide for such a sanction as confiscation of property.